Advertise here: Contact FM.


Ted Haggard | New Life Church
November 2, 2006 3:43 PM   RSS feed for this thread Subscribe

Ted Haggard, one of the most prominent evangelical pastors in the nation, resigned today as president of the National Association of Evangelicals amid allegations that he carried on a three-year sexual relationship with a male prostitute. He also steps down as pastor of of his 14,000-member New Life Church while a church panel investigates, saying he could "not continue to minister under the cloud created by the accusations."
posted by ericb (1829 comments total) 37 users marked this as a favorite

Earlier thread which was deleted - here.
posted by ericb at 3:44 PM on November 2, 2006


Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
posted by interrobang at 3:45 PM on November 2, 2006 [2 favorites has favorites]


Well, I think this shows that the prior deletion was misplaced. How about resurrecting that dead thread?
posted by caddis at 3:47 PM on November 2, 2006


I don't see anything wrong with priests having sex with prostitutes. Rather than firing this guy, perhaps they should reconsider their flawed doctrine.

Treat the disease, not the symptoms.
posted by Meatbomb at 3:48 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


Christ. What an asshole!
posted by hal9k at 3:48 PM on November 2, 2006 [2 favorites has favorites]


Original claim by gay prostitute allegedly backed up by evidence:
"Today, Jones showed the Denver Post an envelope addressed to him from 'Art,' a name Jones says Haggard used - sent from an address in Colorado Springs. Jones said the envelope came to him with two $100 bills inside.

Jones also played a recording of a voicemail left for Jones from 'Art.' Jones refused to reveal what the topic of the voicemail was about because there could be legal problems and he wants to consult with an attorney....Jones said he would take a lie detector test to validate his claims."

posted by ericb at 3:48 PM on November 2, 2006


Obviously, he stepped down so he can spend more time openly pursuing man ass.
posted by MegoSteve at 3:50 PM on November 2, 2006 [7 favorites has favorites]


Quick, somebody find a picture of him with Santorum, please.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:50 PM on November 2, 2006


So he is innocent, right?
posted by ernie at 3:52 PM on November 2, 2006


Huh. I was sure this was going to be nothing. First Foley, then this...
posted by smackfu at 3:52 PM on November 2, 2006


So at what point do evangelicals agree that they are more morally corrupt than teh gays and teh vile leftist liebrals.
posted by sourbrew at 3:53 PM on November 2, 2006


Ha ha... hooo. Hoo.

*wipes tear*

This is the weaselly little fuck who George Bush consults. This is the arrogant little asshole with his stadium-seating megachurch in Colorado Springs, the same one who told Richard Dawkins not to be arrogant. Sex with a male prostitute? Stepping down is not an admission of guilt? This is fucking great.

I've been waiting for a PTL-style meltdown for a long time, and now that these fuckers are ensconced in our government, with all the money and power that comes along with being aligned with the Plutocrat Party, some of that power-abuse is coming back to bite them in the ass. It's about time.
posted by interrobang at 3:54 PM on November 2, 2006


Obviously, he stepped down so he can spend more time openly pursuing man ass.

*snort* Good one!
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 3:55 PM on November 2, 2006


So.... this one turned out pretty much exactly like the Foley thing. Way to go, MeFi skeptics. You're 0 and 2!
posted by rxrfrx at 3:56 PM on November 2, 2006


Quick, somebody find a picture of him with Santorum, please.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:50 PM GMT on November 2


Spare me the gory details, please!
posted by dash_slot- at 3:56 PM on November 2, 2006


PTL-style meltdown

PTL?
posted by SBMike at 3:57 PM on November 2, 2006


Yup, props to whoever got this into the blue earlier. Shame it got deleted.

Welcome to hell, Ted. This one's real.
posted by imperium at 3:57 PM on November 2, 2006


...Today, Jones showed the Denver Post an envelope addressed to him from "Art," a name Jones says Haggard used - sent from an address in Colorado Springs. Jones said the envelope came to him with two $100 bills inside...

$200 hush money?!? I'm assuming the trick dough was presented in person, but the double-Benjis in question were mailed, implying a bribe, right?

If you are trying to shut someone up, at least make a real effort!
posted by ernie at 3:58 PM on November 2, 2006


P.S. grind grind grind grind grind
posted by rxrfrx at 3:59 PM on November 2, 2006


PTL
posted by mrnutty at 3:59 PM on November 2, 2006


The GOP hates the gays, fears the gays, yet many of these hated and feared gays are the GOP. hee hee. Perhaps it is time for them to find somebody else to hate?
posted by caddis at 3:59 PM on November 2, 2006


PTL. Watch for the nice Jerry Falwell quote in there.
posted by imperium at 4:00 PM on November 2, 2006


"he thinks through a gay newspaper advertisement or an online ad he posted on rentboy.com."

heh. There's something rather amusing about that domain name.
posted by drstein at 4:00 PM on November 2, 2006


pleasepleaseplease be true
posted by Falconetti at 4:01 PM on November 2, 2006


Let's get a pool going; how long before he goes into "rehab"?
posted by you just lost the game at 4:02 PM on November 2, 2006


From the Harper's article in the prev. thread:
According to Ted, it was this army of Christian capitalists that took to the streets. “They're pro-free markets, they're pro-private property,” he said. “That's what evangelical stands for.”
Supply side Christ rides again, I guess.
posted by boo_radley at 4:03 PM on November 2, 2006


Let's get a pool going; how long before he goes into "rehab"?

Alcohol is a hell of a drug!
posted by ernie at 4:03 PM on November 2, 2006


If you go to Haggard's site there's a section titled "What He Believes". But there isn't one called "What He Thinks". Wonder why?
posted by you just lost the game at 4:05 PM on November 2, 2006


What the hell does that "grind grind grind grind grind" mean? It's bad enough we have cryptic FPPs, but do we really need cryptic reasons for deletion?

(I realize this should go to MetaTalk, and I would, except that I used up my once-per-four-days)
posted by Kickstart70 at 4:05 PM on November 2, 2006


The timing on this really is excellent. I wonder if that is an accident?
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 4:06 PM on November 2, 2006


WooHoooooooooooooooo!

posted by mr.curmudgeon at 4:07 PM on November 2, 2006


In Ted's defense that rent boy was way hot. Plus he really was quite a deal. Around-the-world PLUS a reach-around for less than $50 bucks! Including breakfast! Who could pass that up?

And Ted's wife? "Gayle" Well, let's just say the former Easter German supposed "all-female" shot-putter team may be short a member.
posted by tkchrist at 4:08 PM on November 2, 2006


he seemed to be grindgrindgrindgrinding a hell of a lot of man ass, that's for sure
posted by matteo at 4:09 PM on November 2, 2006


The more they rant, the more they're hiding.

Ted Haggard to his flock: Don't be Weird (after the Harper's piece, TV crews were coming)
posted by amberglow at 4:09 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


caddis writes: Well, I think this shows that the prior deletion was misplaced. How about resurrecting that dead thread?

Interesting question, which got me to wondering: has any deleted thread ever been resurrected, in the history of MetaFilter? Any tearful apologies and confession of sins from the moderators?
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:13 PM on November 2, 2006


Seems strange he'd choose to be gay like that.
posted by ODiV at 4:13 PM on November 2, 2006 [23 favorites has favorites]


And maybe this will help the Air Force thing in Colorado Springs, where that church has made it a hostile place to non-Christians.
posted by amberglow at 4:14 PM on November 2, 2006


As far as I can tell, this guy was about equal to James Dobson in influence, but not in national exposure.

And he likes to have sex with other men.

As a libertarian-leaning Dem, I have no problem with that. Yet, if you make a living advocating that people who have gay sex shouldn't have the same rights as straight people, you deserve the heaping helpings of mockery, scorn, penury, and cries of "hypocrite" that you're going to get. Forever and ever amen.
posted by bardic at 4:16 PM on November 2, 2006


wtf - why would a post on this subject be deleted? this guy spoke with the president "everyday" ? influencing policy decisions. jeezus.
posted by specialk420 at 4:17 PM on November 2, 2006


Nussbaum, paraphrased: The bylaws state that when an allegation of immorality is made, this process is triggered, where he puts himself on leave. The outside board makes the final decision.
A lot of churches actually have bylaws like that -- at least, the ones large enough to merit media attention, etc. So he'd pretty much be required to do this no matter how innocent.

That said, his denials are rather... clintonesque. "I never had a homosexual relationship with a man in Denver?" What is this, a Mensa brain teaser? You just say, "No."
posted by verb at 4:17 PM on November 2, 2006


Anyone else remember this thread Turns out Haggard was the guy who ran the church profiled. Pretty interesting coincidence.

has any deleted thread ever been resurrected, in the history of MetaFilter?

I know of at least one instance, although I don't remember the specifics.
posted by delmoi at 4:18 PM on November 2, 2006


has any deleted thread ever been resurrected, in the history of MetaFilter?

I know of at least one instance, although I don't remember the specifics.


I think it was that thread about Lazarus.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 4:19 PM on November 2, 2006 [6 favorites has favorites]


verb writes "'I never had a homosexual relationship with a man in Denver?'"

Hehe... it does sound an awful lot like a technical cop-out. Perhaps they were in a suburb of Denver at the time...
posted by clevershark at 4:20 PM on November 2, 2006


So I've been trying to find a picture of the aforementioned rentboy. Anybody?
posted by Pontius Pilate at 4:22 PM on November 2, 2006


Why do all these Christian Evangelicals keep sucking my cock?
posted by bardic at 4:22 PM on November 2, 2006 [3 favorites has favorites]


I saw a brief interview with him on the news. Looks pretty rough trade to me, with a definite Gannon vibe.

Seriously.
posted by bardic at 4:24 PM on November 2, 2006


Oh, man. I thought you were talking about Merle Haggard there for a minute.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 4:24 PM on November 2, 2006


This is alledgedly the home page of said male escort's massage business. The pictures there (95% SFW, no nudity) are a lot more flattering to this Mike Jones guy than the pic in the article tied to the deleted thread.
posted by clevershark at 4:26 PM on November 2, 2006


C'mon folks, give the man some credit. At least he was screwing grown men. Doesn't that count as standing up for family values and moral decency among today's right wing?
posted by rusty at 4:26 PM on November 2, 2006


Sweet. I still want to see the evidence online (jessamyn deleted the last post, btw).
posted by mathowie at 4:26 PM on November 2, 2006


And by Gannon-vibe, I mean that muscular-yet-beefy rather than totally ripped, semi-balding, military thing.

Is there slang for that yet?
posted by bardic at 4:26 PM on November 2, 2006


Oops, forgot the actual link in my last post :-)
posted by clevershark at 4:27 PM on November 2, 2006


If it were the New York Times instead of the Rocky Mountain News, the NYT would have held the story until next Thursday so as not to interfere with the 'sensitive' election situation, the way the Times did with Bush's illegal NSA spying.
posted by jamjam at 4:28 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


Hillary Clinton drives another poor Christian to homosexuality!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:28 PM on November 2, 2006


Grind, grind, grind, grind, grind, grind
posted by fire&wings at 4:34 PM on November 2, 2006


From his website, "In the news", not completely up to date...
posted by growabrain at 4:34 PM on November 2, 2006


this is a case of the satanic gay agenda in action:

1 - infiltrate key, ahem, positions, in high-level evangelical GOP circles with gay moles pretending to be straight, anti-gay preachers

2 - instruct the moles to let themselves be caught by the press with, ahem, their pants down just a few days before an election, being cheerfully fisted by muscular, clean shaven young men

3 - ???

4 - profit!!!
posted by matteo at 4:36 PM on November 2, 2006


I'll admit that the timing here is awesome IMO. Dem base is fired up enough, and the key now is to hope as many social conservatives and evangelicals as possible are not willing to once again pinch their noses.
posted by bardic at 4:41 PM on November 2, 2006


I just got a Dremel for my birthday. And I found this really cool old pulaski axe in my garage. It's pretty rusty, but there seems to be enough good steel to save it. So you know what I'm going to be doing tomorrow? Literally grinding my axe. True story. I'll think of ya'll.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:43 PM on November 2, 2006


C'mon folks, give the man some credit. At least he was screwing grown men.

I don't get the "at least." What's wrong with what he did?

Or is my irony detector just miscalibrated?
posted by poweredbybeard at 4:44 PM on November 2, 2006


I think the parishioners will blame the guy for tempting him, i bet.
posted by amberglow at 4:45 PM on November 2, 2006


I read it and it still seems hypothetical. One dude claims he had sex with a preacher of a megachurch. There's no tapes, no photos, no proof. It's just hearsay at this point, total gossip with nothing to back it up.

Then why not delete the post?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:50 AM PST on November 2

Oh, man. I thought you were talking about Merle Haggard there for a minute.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 4:24 PM PST on November 2

That's quite a bit closer to 274 minutes, monju. And I didn't know Merle had picked up that megachurch gig. Thanks for the information!
posted by jamjam at 4:45 PM on November 2, 2006


Hate on the FPP because it's newsfilter, fine. But it ain't axe-grinding. This guy represents millions of Christian Americans. He had the president's ear. He is taking a spectacular fall.

If Michael Moore got caught being pegged by Ann Coulter, it would be mefi's job, nay, it's duty to comment upon it.
posted by bardic at 4:46 PM on November 2, 2006


> The more they rant, the more they're hiding.

You know, the thing I really can't stand about queers is they're all Evangelicals like this guy or Republicans like Foley or both. As Amberglow will be the first to tell you, the more you deny it, the more that proves it true.
posted by jfuller at 4:48 PM on November 2, 2006


He probably did sleep with Gannon/Guckert too: ... Every Monday he participates in the West Wing conference call with evangelical leaders. The group continues to prod the President to campaign aggressively for a federal marriage amendment. "We wanted him to use the force of his office to actively lobby the Congress and Senate, which he did not adequately do," says Haggard....

and from there: ...He staked out gay bars, inviting men to come to his church; ...

"come to his church" is some sexual invitation, obviously ; >
posted by amberglow at 4:49 PM on November 2, 2006


Well, looks like he couldn't bring himself to sign the Evangelical Climate Initiative, either. Chump.

And by the way, here are some actual paintings displayed in the New Life Church. Really. I'm not kidding.
posted by maryh at 4:54 PM on November 2, 2006 [3 favorites has favorites]


You know what I can't wait for? I can't wait for the day Tony Perkins is caught humping a dead, gay possum whilst jerking off a transsexual nun in a rabbit costume. That's going to be some g*d-damned interesting day!
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 4:55 PM on November 2, 2006


XD
posted by keswick at 4:56 PM on November 2, 2006


The group continues to prod the President...

heh heh...heh heh heh... heh heh...
/beavis
posted by maryh at 4:56 PM on November 2, 2006


maryh - that is amazing! My snark muscles are failing me ...
posted by rks404 at 4:59 PM on November 2, 2006


You said "prod," huh huhuhuhuhuh

/butthead
posted by keswick at 5:00 PM on November 2, 2006


"You'll find yourself right on some things and wrong on some other things. But, please, in the process, don't be arrogant."

--Ted Haggard
posted by luckypozzo at 5:01 PM on November 2, 2006


PrurientScandalFilter: Don "Choker" Sherwood paid his mistress half a million dollars to keep her mouth shut.

...just to show that Republican scandals aren't strictly a man-to-man affair. You know, "fair and balanced" and all that.
posted by clevershark at 5:03 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


Gee, thanks jessamyn.
But for safety's sake, wear eye protection with that grinder, wouldn't want you blind blind, blind, blind, blind.
I suppose we all have our little axes.
posted by nofundy at 5:03 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


AccuracyFilter: Sorry, make that "more than half of $500,000" to keep quiet.
posted by clevershark at 5:05 PM on November 2, 2006


Christ. What an asshole!

Christ: What an asshole!

posted by Extopalopaketle at 5:06 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


I offer a deep tissue and swedish style massage with the pleasure of the man in mind. If you like a strong muscle man to bring pleasure to you then please call me. I am a muscle stud with a friendly personality and a caring heart. When the Broadway shows play in town the cast and crew call upon me for massage.

Rawr. No wonder he couldn't resist. I mean, come on, the cast and crew of Broadway shows call this guy when they're in town! Thanks for the link, clevershark.
posted by jokeefe at 5:07 PM on November 2, 2006


...of course, I refer to my neighbour Wally Christ, who never rakes his leaves nor mows his lawn.
posted by Extopalopaketle at 5:07 PM on November 2, 2006


Hilarious comments.
An even better thread I'd venture.
Thank you ericb.
Can we get that Harper's reference back about the statuary at his "church?"
posted by nofundy at 5:08 PM on November 2, 2006


Gay sex demons. (from May 2005)
posted by Armitage Shanks at 5:14 PM on November 2, 2006


I'm not an evangelical; emphatically so. I was raised evangelical, and left because the evangelicals are everything I hate about the modern world: slick, commercial, cool, easy, pop-psychologising, et cetera. They have no concept of their own religion, a religion I tend to have a lot of respect for.

But I have a really hard time feeling good about this. I mean, even if it were good to be happy about the downfall of an asshole (and I don't know that it is) this guy, from everything I know, has never been an asshole. His biggest crime, if you ask me, is being part of a culture of mediocrity. I haven't always agreed with the things he's said, but I've never heard him expressing those views in a violent or crude way like so many nut-job preachers have (say, Jerry Falwell.)

Just think about it for a moment: this guy has a wife, kids, who have to deal with the fact that he's been cheating on them. That's a hell of a burden.

Add to that the fact that schadenfreude is pretty disgusting when it comes down. I remember how bad it was when the Republicans brought Clinton down; how sad and sick it was to see people delighting in the fracturing of a guy's family because it brought them political gain. This isn't really different.

And it'd be nice if this were some sort of victory in the name of egalitarianism, but it's not. Human hypocrisy doesn't prove anything to anybody; this guy's moral weakness doesn't demonstrate that homosexuality is no less immoral than heterosexuality. Unfortunately, it'll probably make it worse.
posted by koeselitz at 5:20 PM on November 2, 2006 [8 favorites has favorites]


poweredbybeard: "At least" meaning "at least it wasn't teenage boys." By being an apparently normal homosexual man (albeit of the pay-for-play variety, which is rather distasteful for gays and non alike), Ted Haggard has probably done some good for the right wing image. I would think. In the "Ted Haggard proves evangelical right-wing not all pedophiles" kind of way.
posted by rusty at 5:20 PM on November 2, 2006


I think that's why jess deleted the last thread. I agree with it, if it was.
posted by koeselitz at 5:20 PM on November 2, 2006


This is why I would never become a gay prostitute. I bet half my customers would be evangelicals.
posted by obvious at 5:22 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


the same one who told Richard Dawkins not to be arrogant

Heh. And another of his detractors, notorious creationist Kent Hovind was convicted of tax fraud today. Dawkins is a couple of days from the end of the U.S. portion of his book tour (for The God Delusion), and it does seem that the fates are conspiring to give him an interesting bon voyage.
posted by Creosote at 5:26 PM on November 2, 2006


Just think about it for a moment: this guy has a wife, kids, who have to deal with the fact that he's been cheating on them. That's a hell of a burden.

Too bad that didn't stop him.
posted by ernie at 5:26 PM on November 2, 2006


His biggest crime, if you ask me, is being part of a culture of mediocrity.

I would describe the big Evangelical churches' actions vis a vis cheerleading the Iraq War, getting Republicans elected, rallying against marriage rights, "curing" gays, and so forth as a little more than "a culture of mediocrity." More like a culture of repression, and worse.
posted by rxrfrx at 5:27 PM on November 2, 2006


From his website, Ted Haggard believes:

Hell: After living one life on earth, the unbelievers will be judged by God and sent to hell where they will be eternally tormented with the devil and the fallen angels (see Matt. 25:41; Mark 9:43-48; Heb. 9:27; Rev. 14:9-11; 20:12-15; 21:8).

Or to put it another way, he believes the universe is run by a despot who will send to eternal torment all those who fail to show appropriate fealty to the supreme leader.

I'm pretty happy to see a guy who thinks that way lose the ear of the president, although there are no doubt lots of others waiting to take his place.
posted by bowline at 5:29 PM on November 2, 2006


koeselitz: Clinton wasn't rallying thousands of followers against the Evil Demon of Blowjobs, and trying make sure that no one who engaged in oral sex could marry, or adopt, or in any way be permitted to lead a normal life in america. That's why this is different.

What all of these "moral crusader turns out to be a total hypocrite" stories always demonstrate is that the people who are the most vocally against something are usually drawn to that thing irresistably, and hate themselves for it. How many other ordinary gay men did this guy lure into his church and convince that they should hate themselves too? How much longer do we have to repeat this cycle?

Every one of them that falls is one less blot on humanity, and one more step toward freedom for all of us. Good riddance, and may the rest of them follow.
posted by rusty at 5:30 PM on November 2, 2006 [3 favorites has favorites]


rxfrx: "More like a culture of repression, and worse."

I'd wager that you don't know too many evangelicals, and that you only know them from what you see on TV and the Internet. Let me be the first to tell you, you usually have to talk to people before you can understand their culture.
posted by koeselitz at 5:31 PM on November 2, 2006


Koeselitz--that was an interesting and thoughtful post, but I will disagree with one point: ". I remember how bad it was when the Republicans brought Clinton down...This isn't really different."

It is different, and you yourself allude to the way it is: the hypocrisy. Clinton was never looked at as a beacon of virtue--he'd had his "bimbo eruptions" since he was first running for president. Haggard's job is/was to be a beacon of virtue. The schadenfreude you see here in the Blue is delight in the exposure of that hypocrisy.
posted by adamrice at 5:32 PM on November 2, 2006


Haggard preaching against homosexuality from the recent documentary 'Jesus Camp': YouTube video.
posted by ericb at 5:34 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


rusty: "What all of these "moral crusader turns out to be a total hypocrite" stories always demonstrate is that the people who are the most vocally against something are usually drawn to that thing irresistably, and hate themselves for it."

By that logic, every person here, and Richard Dawkins too, is a closet evangelical. Somehow, I doubt it.

What a crappy argument.

Taking joy in the pain of others is always wrong.
posted by koeselitz at 5:35 PM on November 2, 2006


I remember how bad it was when the Republicans brought Clinton down; how sad and sick it was to see people delighting in the fracturing of a guy's family because it brought them political gain. This isn't really different.

I respectfully disagree. First off, Clinton's impeachment arguably helped him out. His polls actually went up, and many Republicans looked really bad and were flailing until 9/11 changed the political landscape for everyone.

I think it's a lot different for another reason. Bill Clinton didn't build his career on moralistic finger-pointing about the evils of sex outside of marriage. (Far, far from it.) Say what you will, but hypocrisy isn't Clinton's fatal flaw. Arrogance, hubris, and a willingness to use people for his own political ends? Take you pick from those three.

Human hypocrisy doesn't prove anything to anybody; this guy's moral weakness doesn't demonstrate that homosexuality is no less immoral than heterosexuality.

Ancient Greek playwrites would disagree with you, among others. Yes, I feel sorry for this guy's family, but let's not get too misty here -- the guy made a nice home for him and his through gay-baiting. When Christian Evangelicals start holding candle-light vigils every time a gay teenager commits suicide because of the hate thrown at them, maybe we can talk parity. Until then, say it loud: People telling you who you should and shouldn't fuck are probably fucking all kinds of people you don't know about. If there is a Christian God, these people (hypocrites and deceivers in general) are going to a far worse place than lil' ol' atheist me.
posted by bardic at 5:36 PM on November 2, 2006 [3 favorites has favorites]


Just think about it for a moment: this guy has a wife, kids, who have to deal with the fact that he's been cheating on them. That's a hell of a burden.

Then, let me be the first to welcome him to the g*ddamned real world, where the rest of us try to do better by our fellow citizens without jettisoning our critical thinking and reasoning skills. Where we strive to acknowledge our faults, without the promise of becoming eternal f*cking lotto winners.

Where we accept others, even with their shortcomings, because we can recognize our own. The real world. The one he's been pretending to be above and beyond.

Fuck this guy.
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 5:37 PM on November 2, 2006 [5 favorites has favorites]


rusty and adamrice pretty much beat me to my main points.
posted by bardic at 5:38 PM on November 2, 2006


Give me a break.

I met him a decade ago. Along with my husband I talked to him one on one. My gaydar works just fine and his did not ping it.

It's right before an election, he is on record as being against same sex marriage along with his church, and he is a target.

Besides, do any of you believe for a minute that if this was true it would take THREE FREAKING YEARS for it to come to light????? As well known as he is????


So until some real proof comes along (and I ain't holding my breath) I'm certainly giving him the benefit of the doubt. As to him stepping down from his positions, I wouldn't expect him to do any less under the circumstances.
posted by konolia at 5:39 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


koeselitz: Those kind, loving evangelicals who stand outside the Common Ground Fair entrance with the giant placards of what I assume they want me to believe are aborted fetuses? Or the ones who consistently deny gay men and women just like the good Rev. Haggard the same basic rights and freedoms straight people have?

I'm sure they're very nice to chat with, as long as you're just like them. Next time you hang out with some evangelicals who don't know you, tell them you're a gay Planned Parenthood employee. See how that goes.
posted by rusty at 5:41 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


koeselitz: The difference is that this is not just a matter of private family anguish, though I imagine it will include that (of course we have no idea if his wife already knew about this or not, assuming it's true-- she may have, we just don't know). He is a hugely prominent figure who has used his moral authority over those entrusted to his spiritual care in the service of punishing his fellow gay citizens by campaigning against the right to marry as well as a laundry list of other offenses. They're already been enumerated here, so I won't repeat them. So I'm not going to celebrate his personal Gethsemane, but I will celebrate the downfall of his public moral authority, which I feel has been used in the service of bigotry and prejudice.
posted by jokeefe at 5:42 PM on November 2, 2006


Taking joy in the pain of others is always wrong.

I tend to agree. But while my giggles are inappropriate, the confirmation of my belief that the biggest moralists are often the biggest hypocrites isn't. And that power corrupts -- during the 80's and 90's, Christians were eager to jump into bed with Republican politicans. (Huh huh /beavis.) Now they're reaping what they've sown.

I hope his wife and kids can manage to live normal lives after this. My hunch is that they'd be best off moving far away from the same hypocrite-ennablers with which they've insulated themselves, and to try and live their own lives in the best way possible, as opposed to screeching at other people about how they should live their lives.
posted by bardic at 5:43 PM on November 2, 2006


My fear is that he didn't practice safe sex with either his wife or his male sex partner.
posted by TorontoSandy at 5:43 PM on November 2, 2006


konolia, I accuse you of consorting with prostitutes. You should quit your job now.

(That would be kind of silly, wouldn't it? You quitting your job because some random person accused you of something criminal and hypocritical? Unless there was, ya know, some merit. The guy obviously did it or he wouldn't have quit.)
posted by bardic at 5:44 PM on November 2, 2006


By that logic, every person here, and Richard Dawkins too, is a closet evangelical. Somehow, I doubt it.

Touche. That's actually a good point. I could argue against it, but I'm not actually fully convinced myself, so I will leave it alone to be thought upon.

Taking joy in the pain of others is always wrong.

I agree with that too. I feel bad about it. And most of my joy is not in Haggard's pain, but in the continued exposure of the hypocrisy and corruption underlying the megachurch evangelical movement and the "family values" right. But some of my joy is in the personal pain of someone I can't find anything but contempt for in my heart. And to that extent, I too am a bad person.
posted by rusty at 5:45 PM on November 2, 2006


bardic: "Ancient Greek playwrites would disagree with you, among others."

I'd like to know which one. Most of the ancient greek playwrights were big fans of rationality. Lots of them thought, as I do, that homosexuality is morally equivalent, and probably superior, to heterosexuality because of its nature, not because some guy cheats on his wife. In fact, saying that homosexuality is morally acceptable because some guy cheats on his wife doesn't even make sense. And the greek playwrights, as far as I know, liked things that make sense.

2sheets: 'I grew up in the south and know them all too well. Evangelicals are pigs. It's good to see one on the spit. Can you smell what's cooking, you hypocritical neo-hillbilly trash?"

Wow. This is going well. What a delightful thing to say.
posted by koeselitz at 5:45 PM on November 2, 2006


"This is the arrogant little asshole with his stadium-seating megachurch in Colorado Springs, the same one who told Richard Dawkins not to be arrogant."

Man, when I saw that show, the first thing I wanted to do was hit this guy as hard as I could. The next thought that crossed my mind was "boy, that guy is probably one creepily twisted hypocritical SOB with some appalling skeletons in his closet." And then I felt a little sorry for him. But I still wanted to hit him.

Thankfully, the real world is doing it for me! :)

This is exactly the kind of religious nutcase that Dawkins is 100% correct about. Nobody should ever allow someone like this to attain a position of power over them, nor look up to them as some kind of idol.

Haven't we, collectively, seen enough of these "false prophet" type assholes to know not to listen to one word they say yet?

I can usually recognize one of them after two or three sentences out of their mouth, how come so many people out there join their "flocks" so credulously??

And when you see your President (or other leader, as applicable) listening to such whack jobs, remove him from office as fast as possible.

Stupid arrogant bastard, Haggard. Enjoy the slide downwards. Try to catch yourself before you hit bottom...

"Taking joy in the pain of others is always wrong."

Well, ya got me there koeselitz. Sigh. I'm only human, and sometimes payback being a bitch induces satisfaction in me.

"Just think about it for a moment: this guy has a wife, kids, who have to deal with the fact that he's been cheating on them. That's a hell of a burden."

That is a tragedy. However, it's sort of an everyday tragedy, which will very unfortunately be amplified by the national news coverage. When I say "everyday," I mean that people cheating on their spouses and getting caught doing bad things happens every day, sort of a run-of-the-mill human behavior problem.

I feel very sorry for his family, as they are victims of his foolishness, but I agree with ernie that it's a shame this didn't stop the guy. Clearly he knows the difference between right and wrong, and that this behavior could destroy the lives of everyone around him?

Contrast that with the tragedies caused by discrimination against GLBTs, and Christian Crusaderism married with corporate greed and the world-domination ambitions of a group of megalomaniacs, in which this guy has been an active and vocal supporter and participant. This guy has been "advising" the President of the United States. Undoubtedly he has provided support for our disastrous foreign policy adventures, eh?

He's a part of a sick, twisted system, and as tragic as it is for him personally and for his loved ones - not to mention the people who've latched onto him as their conduit to God, the poor folks - he's just one of many towering egoes that need to be cut down to size for their blatant and evil hypocrisy.
posted by zoogleplex at 5:47 PM on November 2, 2006 [2 favorites has favorites]


And your "gaydar"? Please konolia, go drink a glass of sanity. Unless you've spent the summer on Fire Island recently, you're probably not an expert on the subject of who is and isn't gay.

He was probably paying the prostitute hush money and decided he could get away with stopping. Bad idea.
posted by bardic at 5:48 PM on November 2, 2006


Besides, do any of you believe for a minute that if this was true it would take THREE FREAKING YEARS for it to come to light????? As well known as he is????

Clinton continued doing what he did for what, 2 years before anyone knew about it? That's how affairs work -- both parties do it *in secret* and it only comes to light down the line when one party is tired of the secret arrangement.

Hopefully these voicemails and letters get online so we can see the evidence, though seeing him step down looks rather guilty. I remember Foley was gone before I ever saw a slutty IM online.
posted by mathowie at 5:49 PM on November 2, 2006


Yeah, chill, 2sheets. That was uncalled for.
posted by jokeefe at 5:50 PM on November 2, 2006


rusty: "I'm sure they're very nice to chat with, as long as you're just like them. Next time you hang out with some evangelicals who don't know you, tell them you're a gay Planned Parenthood employee. See how that goes."

I haven't done that. I have walked up to them and asked them to stop protesting before. And I've told my evangelical parents that I was having sex with my girlfriend, that I was moving in with her, and that I wouldn't be going to church any time soon. So before you talk to me about their hatred, know that I've experienced most of what it has to offer.
posted by koeselitz at 5:50 PM on November 2, 2006


"Ancient Greek playwrites would disagree with you, among others."

I think bardic is referring to the fact that in Greek Tragedy Hubris is often followed by Nemesis.
posted by ericb at 5:53 PM on November 2, 2006


Oh, and by the way:

"...the same one who told Richard Dawkins not to be arrogant."

What an idiot. I'm sure he spent his prayer time telling god to be less all-powerful; I imagine that was about as productive.

posted by koeselitz at 5:53 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


"This guy, from everything I know, has never been an asshole. His biggest crime, if you ask me, is being part of a culture of mediocrity. I haven't always agreed with the things he's said, but I've never heard him expressing those views in a violent or crude way like so many nut-job preachers have (say, Jerry Falwell.)"

Well, let's see, Koeselitz. He preaches on and on about the evils of homosexuality, declares gays are going to hell, and advocates an anti-gay marriage amendment to his *millions* of followers.

Sounds like an asshole to me!
posted by mijuta at 5:53 PM on November 2, 2006


I was making a long-winded point that fatal flaws, usually in the form of hubris rather than hypocrisy, are the stuff of some great art and tragedy. This situation doesn't exactly qualify, but there's a common theme in demagogues gone off the rails. So yeah, I'm a giggly voyeur to this trash, but again rusty said it better than I did -- it's not delighting in the pain this causes his family as much as delighting in yet another example of IOKIYAChristian, a common variant on IOKIYAR.

More simply, the party of moral values isn't. Hell, the religion of moral values isn't. The more stuff like this comes to light, the more quickly these worthless memes will go away, hopefully.
posted by bardic at 5:53 PM on November 2, 2006


My gaydar works just fine

Does your gaydar flash a little red light, or is it the kind that makes a whoop-whoop sound?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 5:55 PM on November 2, 2006 [5 favorites has favorites]


has any deleted thread ever been resurrected, in the history of MetaFilter?

yes, this one was deleted because of subject matter but many protests caused matt to change his mind ...
posted by pyramid termite at 5:56 PM on November 2, 2006


If he was framed, stepping down seems like the wrong move. Its so easy to characterize that as an admission of guilt.

I wouldn't be suprised if he was framed, or if he like to suck a bit of dick now and again.

What a crazy bitch this life is, eh?
posted by dobie at 5:58 PM on November 2, 2006


rxfrx: More like a culture of repression, and worse.

Are you kidding me? Go reread your Foucault - these guys absolutely can't stop talking about sex and the radical sex demons who want to sex them up sexually. It's the furthest thing from repression imaginable!

Just as the Meese Report was its era's filthiest pr0n, the discourse of evangelicals is more jam-packed fulla hot steamy man-on-man action than anything from Colt Studios.
posted by adamgreenfield at 6:03 PM on November 2, 2006


Koeslitz, you have your experience with fundamentalists. I'm glad your parents didn't disown you. And "fundamentalists" can cover many degrees, from basically devout to frothing at the mouth. Many of my family fall at different parts of that spectrum. I used to, myself.

But, you know, sometimes comeuppance is deserved. Perhaps this man's falling off his pedestal will lessen the hatred that he has *dedicated his life* to fomenting against gays. To be honest, I don't care enough about him to want him to suffer. I just want him to be unable to keep spouting his hatred of gays (and others) in God's name. Because he's not doing God any favors. And if it takes a public scandal to do it, then so be it.

I'm sorry for his family, but it is him, not us, who is dragging them through the mud. He's the one who cheated on his wife, who made himself a visible symbol of homophobia. Take his family's pain up with him, not with us. Otherwise, people who do wrong would always be able to hide behind their families so no one could call them on it.
posted by emjaybee at 6:03 PM on November 2, 2006


Haggard: homosexuality is a “sin” and “devastating for the children of our nation and for the future of Western civilization.”
posted by ericb at 6:05 PM on November 2, 2006


Why does Matthowie hate black people huge cocks?
posted by bardic at 6:12 PM on November 2, 2006


"I met him a decade ago. Along with my husband I talked to him one on one. My gaydar works just fine and his did not ping it."

Konolia, maybe your gaydar is total crap? Because if you watch this video, you'll see what an obvious cock sucker he is.

(I say this as a cock sucker myself. A male cock sucker, that is.)
posted by mijuta at 6:14 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


Perhaps this man's falling off his pedestal will lessen the hatred that he has *dedicated his life* to fomenting against gays.

My bet is he will join the Born Again Whatever, claiming it was the devil and abuse of some drug he now doesn't get anymore, but that now he talks with Jesus or something.

A stream of bullshit as usual.
posted by elpapacito at 6:15 PM on November 2, 2006


Never been to Fire Island BUT have had lots of experience being around and talking to gay people. Give me a break, most of you have gaydar too.

As to the stepping down part-a lot of large churches have this sort of procedure should accusations like this come up. Kinda like a cop going on desk duty or unpaid leave if he or she shoots someone in the line of duty. Doesn't mean they did anything wrong, it's simply standard procedure. Besides, I know if I were accused of something like this, my mind certainly would not be on work.

I cannot believe you all believe this without any shred of real evidence. Something like this could happen to anyone. It is frighteningly not uncommon in politics, where false accusations ruin lives and careers simply to protect the power of crooked politicians.
posted by konolia at 6:19 PM on November 2, 2006


I don't try to take joy in someone else's suffering, but there are only a few in this world who probably deserve it more.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:20 PM on November 2, 2006


koselitz, don't be lazy. there's an entire google of information out there if you actually care to learn about the influence of guys like Haggard on the president, and how this mainly worked to effect bigotry, mixing of church and state, and neocon-style fascism. The dude's own personal hypocrisy doesn't even need to enter into this, as much as it should.
posted by rxrfrx at 6:22 PM on November 2, 2006


Well, the evidence so far is that a gay male prostitute claims he had lots of sex with Ted Haggard. Nothing is confirmed yet, but that's evidence.

If that was totally baseless, Haggard should have denied, period, and gone on with his life.

Like I said, if a random stranger accused me of a criminal act, I'd deny it and go to work the next day. Because I haven't committed a criminal act for a while.

But in any event, if this is confirmed, please come back to this thread and remind us that because of his actions, Ted Haggard will burn in hell forever for being gay, a hypocrite, and a deceiver of his fellow Christians. That'd be good fun. Then get back out their with your keen "gaydar" and out some more sinners for us, you loon.
posted by bardic at 6:27 PM on November 2, 2006


My gaydar works just fine and his did not ping it.

Really? Mine spiked and shorted out from overload the second I saw him. It may not work, though. After all it goes off everytime I see a Tom Cruise movie.
posted by tkchrist at 6:27 PM on November 2, 2006


This November surprise proves that while God is neither a Democrat or a Republican, He sure doesn't want the GOP getting any traction from the Kerry kerfluffle.

And with Haggard's possible fall will come more allegations. It's 1987 all over again. And from the falls of Swaggart and Bakker and Roberts came the openings that led Robertson and Dobson and Haggard to the top of American Christianity.

The Christian church in America is about to go through another transformative cycle. The question is whether it's going to emerge looking more like Brian McLaren's Emerging Church or Mark Driscoll's neo-Reformed Movement.

For you atheists and non-Christians, this last bit is all irrelevant to you. Just know this: You're about to get a generation in the spotlight. Enjoy it, because soon enough Richard Dawkins is going to be spotted having gay sex with a Jehovah's Witness or saying "God bless you" when someone sneezes. And then, some other group replaces you. Probably a politicized Church of SubGenius campaigning for a constitutional amendment guaranteeing right to slack.
posted by dw at 6:28 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


People I feel sorry for, in ascending order, if this turns out to be false:
* Pastor Ted's wife and children
* Pastor Ted
* millions of gay Americans who have to live with the effects of his homophobic bullshit

People I feel sorry for, in ascending order, if this turns out to be true:
* Pastor Ted
* Pastor Ted's wife and children
* millions of gay Americans who have to live with the effects of his homophobic bullshit
posted by Armitage Shanks at 6:28 PM on November 2, 2006


Bardic, I could talk about the sinfulness of assuming the worst about someone just because someone else said so.

That's enough to send someone to hell if they refuse to repent.
posted by konolia at 6:32 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


I haven't done that. I have walked up to them and asked them to stop protesting before. And I've told my evangelical parents that I was having sex with my girlfriend, that I was moving in with her, and that I wouldn't be going to church any time soon. So before you talk to me about their hatred, know that I've experienced most of what it has to offer.

Take this in the best way you can: You have no idea what their hatred is, if that's your experience. That's not my opinion for you to disagree with, it's a fact for you to understand and accept.
posted by odinsdream at 6:34 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


koeselitz: I gave it some more thought, and I actually think you're right about the "closet evangelical" thing. I can't speak for anyone else here, but here's what I find when I think about that. My original point essentially was that we have particular hatred and loathing for that which we envy and deny ourselves. Ok? So naturally, gay Rev. Haggard works out his issues by crusading against gays.

But I'm a farily outspoken athiest, and while I'm not out crusading anywhere, I feel a deep personal loathing for all kinds of fundamentalists, and religious ones in particular. So am I a closet evangelical? I find that basically I am. I envy the simple, uncomplicated worldview that fundamentalists can afford. There is Good and there is Evil. We are Good. We fight Evil. That's basically all there is to it. And for Christians, becoming Good is easy as falling off a log. "I accept Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior." Bada-bing! Done!

My own worldview is a lot more complicated than that. It involves thinking about issues in context, considering more than one side of any given issue, trying to determine what I think might be best for people in general and me in particular, trying to take into account the wisdom of a lot of really terrifyingly smart people who have been doing this since forever, and many of whom disagreed radically with each other. I have to worry about questions like "How can people figure out how to get along with each other and make the most of the infinitely short time that we have?" I have to try to understand what really drives people to do terrible things, individually and as whole societies, and how we can prevent these things from happening in the future.

I mean, no one has charged me with figuring it all out or anything, but I feel like it's everyone's responsibility to think about this stuff. And sometimes there are not any obviously good answers. It can make a thinking moral being feel pretty damn helpless sometimes.

So yes, I am in a way a closet evangelical. It would be so easy, so seductively easy to simply assign everything to one of two categories and go to town against the Evil stuff. It would be so much easier if I could get my entire ethos out of one convenient book. Or, even better, one convenient TV show, hosted by a guy who says he's read the one book. Who needs all the effort involved in being a rational moral actor anyway? Screw it. Let's go bash some fags and call it a day, right?

And the fact that I can feel that temptation, and completely understand and sympathize with it, makes me feel such an intense loathing for the hordes of people who have given in to it, or never even realized they had a choice.

So yes, I stand by my original claim, that what we envy and deny ourselves is what we hate the most. Including what that statement says about me.
posted by rusty at 6:34 PM on November 2, 2006 [21 favorites has favorites]


Ah, and you miss the point yet again. Men fucking other men isn't a sin. What's sinful is hypocrisy and deceit, on the scale of millions of people, i.e., his followers.

So if this a false accusation, I'm guilty of thinking that Haggard is gay when he isn't. What wouldn't change is that he's dedicated his life to sewing hatred against a minority group, and he's gotten rich doing it.

If he does like to suck cock, well, he's still a hateful bigot. But a hateful bigoted hypocrite as well.
posted by bardic at 6:35 PM on November 2, 2006


Blame it all on the gay agenda!
posted by ericb at 6:35 PM on November 2, 2006


Kinda like a cop going on desk duty or unpaid leave if he or she shoots someone in the line of duty. Doesn't mean they did anything wrong, it's simply standard procedure. Besides, I know if I were accused of something like this, my mind certainly would not be on work.

Only, you know, the difference is between someone being accused of doing something, and a cop actually shooting another human.

One thing actually happened, and the other thing is an accusation.
posted by odinsdream at 6:36 PM on November 2, 2006


konolia writes "Bardic, I could talk about the sinfulness of assuming the worst about someone just because someone else said so."

And yet you seem to be assuming that Jones is lying.
posted by clevershark at 6:36 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


I cannot believe you all believe this without any shred of real evidence.

Wow! To hear these words from konolia... My irony detector just blew so hard it knocked out my gaydar.

I just got a Dremel for my birthday. And I found this really cool old pulaski axe in my garage. It's pretty rusty, but there seems to be enough good steel to save it. So you know what I'm going to be doing tomorrow? Literally grinding my axe. True story. I'll think of ya'll.

Dude, that's the fastest way to ruin the heat treat on the steel. A regular mill file works just fine.
posted by c13 at 6:37 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


Re: the 'Gaydar' mini-thread - it was obvious, to me at least, while watching the Richard Dawkin's documentary several months ago that Haggard was gay.

And what about that video- fascinating for so many reasons:

An obviously gay man talking about 'processing',

the 'disassociated' character that refers to itself as 'we' rather than I,

the 'John Kerry' thing!,

and the "I've never had sex with a man in Denver" action.

I wonder how much suffering this man has caused to his parishioners by inflicting his message that homosexuality is wrong.
posted by jettloe at 6:39 PM on November 2, 2006


I cannot believe you all believe this without any shred of real evidence.

I was fairly skeptical, until he claimed to have voicemails. If he's lying, that's a pretty bold claim to make. One way or the other, we'll know real soon.

There are various stories in the Old Testament about God letting the Hebrews stray into sin for years and years before finally laying the smackdown on them. I imagine one could write quite a sermon on the parallels to our current situation.
posted by EarBucket at 6:42 PM on November 2, 2006


(That would be kind of silly, wouldn't it? You quitting your job because some random person accused you of something criminal and hypocritical? Unless there was, ya know, some merit. The guy obviously did it or he wouldn't have quit.)
I'll reiterate: I'm no fan of Haggard's, but yes. The 'morality scandal' issue is something that churches and religious institutions tend to either ignore completely and brush under the carpet, or take very seriously. Most large churches have rules about this kind of thing: if you're accused of something that goes against the church's basic beliefs or moral precepts, and you're in a leadership position, you step down temporarily while things get sorted out and the truth of the matter is resolved. It's happened to folks I know, and it's not -- in and of itself -- news.

Mind you, I find his weirdly precise denials a bit odd, and it's the kind of story that I dont' find difficult to believe at all based on my experience in the church. But stepping down for the duration of an investigation into the matter is SOP for megachurches and minichurches and what not.
posted by verb at 6:44 PM on November 2, 2006


emjaybee: Perhaps this man's falling off his pedestal will lessen the hatred that he has *dedicated his life* to fomenting against gays.

Unfortunately, however it affects Haggard, I think his flock will learn to be more homophobic.

This gives them a tremendously negative example of homosexuality, doubtlessly added to an already biased sample set. They'll see a community leader fed to the flames he helped ignite. They'll see homosexuality conflated with the crime of prostitution, the secrecy and shame of adultery. And, possibly, they'll see all of it framed by the destruction of a marriage and a career.

What homophobic people need to see, fear to see, is a successful, adjusted homosexual relationship. A marriage, if you will. This sort of example will only make them worse.
posted by kid ichorous at 6:47 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


konolia: Something like this could happen to anyone. It is frighteningly not uncommon in politics, where false accusations ruin lives and careers simply to protect the power of crooked politicians.

Too true. I was falsely accused of something bad several years ago. It was awful. Even though the person making the accusation had zero credibility, and anyone who cared to look into the matter knew that he was a flake, there still were people who believed the accusations.

If someone who is mentally unstable decides to accuse you of something bad, there's not much you can do about it other than to allow "the process" to exonerate you in the eyes of those who are willing to base their opinions on evidence. That's why I'm going to wait until there's more information before I start drawing any conclusions.

So far as I can tell, Haggard is doing what the procedures of his church say he's supposed to do when such accusations are made. He's the head of an organization that has encouraged churches to develop these processes for handling accusations, and now you all think that if he's really innocent he would refuse to allow "the process" to work, and if he is following the stated process it must be a sign of guilt?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 6:50 PM on November 2, 2006


I wonder how much suffering this man has caused to his parishioners by inflicting his message that homosexuality is wrong.


Replace "homosexuality" with pedophilia and see how that reads.

I am not disagreeing with the fact that homosexuals go thru pain out of nonacceptance. I submit that pedophiles do as well. That does not mean that either act is acceptable or not sinful. For that matter, adulterers probably don't appreciate being told that that is sin. Murderers? Well, I think most of them have no problem admitting that murder is a sin, interestingly.

If you don't claim God as your authority figure by all means do as you will. You can do nothing else. But Ted has made a profession of following God, therefore he will believe as I do that certain actions are sin against a holy God. If these accusations do turn out to be true I will be truly flabbergasted.

In contrast I had no problem believing Swaggart messed up.
posted by konolia at 6:53 PM on November 2, 2006


I, by the way, have gaynar -- I can detect homosexuals through sound.
posted by TheWash at 6:53 PM on November 2, 2006 [7 favorites has favorites]


So this is the guy that wanted to dictate what morality should be for all of us? And he fucks gay hookers and takes meth while we are compelled by the government to do what he says?

Sorry - I'm laughing myself silly over this and I don't even feel vaguely bad about it. He deserves a lot worse for his arrogance and this whole event, weirdly enough, makes me feel like there is a god up there, dishing out some old testament style poetic justice.
posted by rks404 at 6:56 PM on November 2, 2006


konolia writes "Replace 'homosexuality' with pedophilia and see how that reads."

Why is it that the "religious" have so much problem differentiating homosexuality from pedophilia? Why the obsessive need to associate the two?
posted by clevershark at 6:58 PM on November 2, 2006


Replace "homosexuality" with pedophilia and see how that reads.

How dare you equate the two?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:59 PM on November 2, 2006


Oh no, you did NOT just equqte consensual adult sex with child molesters.
posted by ltracey at 7:00 PM on November 2, 2006


"equqte" = "equate" (see Blazecock Pileon above.)
posted by ltracey at 7:01 PM on November 2, 2006


“They're pro-free markets, they're pro-private property, they're pro-felching man ass” he said. “That's what evangelical stands for.”
posted by PeterMcDermott at 7:03 PM on November 2, 2006


What homophobic people need to see, fear to see, is a successful, adjusted homosexual relationship. A marriage, if you will.

As before (in the deleted thread) --

Gay marriage has actually helped strengthen the institution of marriage in Scandanavia.
"Seventeen years after recognizing same-sex relationships in Scandinavia there are higher marriage rates for heterosexuals, lower divorce rates, lower rates for out-of-wedlock births, lower STD rates, more stable and durable gay relationships, more monogamy among gay couples, and so far no slippery slope to polygamy, incestuous marriages, or 'man-on-dog' unions."

[Wall Street Journal | October 27, 2006]

posted by ericb at 7:03 PM on November 2, 2006 [2 favorites has favorites]


konolia: If you don't claim God as your authority figure by all means do as you will. You can do nothing else.

Not true. God has impressed the natural law upon the heart of every person. Even when someone is so depraved as to deny the existence of God, the natural law remains at the core of that person's being, commanding him or her to do what is right. That's why we spend so much time listening to music and watching tv and surfing the net and so on: we are all afraid of silence because if we don't keep up a steady stream of distractions we might hear the still, small voice at the center of our hearts, and be forced to confront the gap between who we are and who we know we should be. Better to whistle past that particular graveyard, thank you very much.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 7:04 PM on November 2, 2006 [4 favorites has favorites]


Replace "homosexuality" with pedophilia and see how that reads.

Replace "Konolia" with "wingnut fruitcake" and see how that reads.

Not that I'm equating the two of course.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 7:06 PM on November 2, 2006 [4 favorites has favorites]


That does not mean that either act is acceptable or not sinful.

And, by all means, don't eat shrimp! God Hates Shrimp.
posted by ericb at 7:07 PM on November 2, 2006


God has impressed the natural law upon the heart of every person. Even when someone is so depraved as to deny the existence of God, the natural law remains at the core of that person's being, commanding him or her to do what is right.

When you're making something up, you can make it up however you want. Fantasizing is cool until you mistake it for reality.
posted by jsonic at 7:09 PM on November 2, 2006


God hates figs.
posted by EarBucket at 7:10 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


Proof that fundamentalists selectively quote the Bible: A lesson about the book of Leviticus.
posted by ericb at 7:10 PM on November 2, 2006


"The moral hypocrisy and intellectual constipation of Bible literalists."
posted by ericb at 7:12 PM on November 2, 2006


From the comments on the onegoodmove video site: "Why is it when I look at Pastor Ted, I can't help but think: "This guy has had a man's dick in his asshole . . . many, many times . . .""
It'd be fine if it were a woman's dick, though.
posted by fish tick at 7:13 PM on November 2, 2006


Forget the men lying with men shctick ...

Women must not wear gold or pearls (1 Timothy 2:9).

A woman must not "teach or... have authority over a man" (1 Timothy 2:12).

People must not "not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" (Leviticus 19:19).

Men must not shave (Leviticus 19:27).

People must not eat rabbit (Leviticus 11:6), pork (Leviticus 11:7), or shellfish (Leviticus 11:9-12).

It is "disgraceful" for a woman to speak out in church (1 Corinthians 14:34-36) and that if she has any questions, she should wait till she gets home and ask her husband.

The penalty for going to work on Sunday (Exodus 35:1-3) is death.

The man who rapes a virgin should buy her from her father (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) and marry her.
posted by ericb at 7:18 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


And what exactly did Jesus and those twelve single young virile men who followed him have to say about homosexuality anyway?
posted by ericb at 7:20 PM on November 2, 2006


Konolia, newsflash: not all gays wear horns and forked tails so as to be easily recognizable by good christian woman like yourself. Just a little tidbit of information to help you along your way.
posted by Hildegarde at 7:20 PM on November 2, 2006


"Replace 'homosexuality' with pedophilia and see how that reads. I am not disagreeing with the fact that homosexuals go thru pain out of nonacceptance. I submit that pedophiles do as well. That does not mean that either act is acceptable or not sinful."

Oh, konolia, you just lost any shred of accountability you were striving for. You can go on with the ludicrous and patently false claim that homosexuality is akin to pedophilia (Criminology 101: the overwhelming percentage of pedophiles are heterosexual), but eventually reality is going to catch up to you.

And you were trying to convince people that you had gaydar and that you talk to gay people? Yeah, maybe you work for one of those ex-gay organizations.

I'm not surprised by your self-righteous and judgmental comments. It's typical of evangelicals, who from their holier-than-thou pedestals love to condemn others--and are the quickest to cry foul when someone accuses one of their own of hypocrisy. (See, for example, your defending Haggart. How does it feel to get a taste of your own medicine?)

By the way, you should check out the book WHAT THE BIBLE REALLY SAYS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY. I think you'd be flabbergasted by how deeply you've been brainwashed.
posted by mijuta at 7:24 PM on November 2, 2006


Konolia: Not like you couldn't have figured this out or anything, but what the hell, here goes anyway.

You can determine what in your list is "a sin" (I'll use terms you're comfortable with here) or not without God's Law by examining if someone is harmed by it. So:

* Consenting adult gay couples have sex? No one harmed. Therefore no sin.

* Man has sex with child? Child is hurt. Therefore: Sin.

* Adultery: Usually the faithful spouse is hurt, and family stability in general is a good thing for society, so Sin. Extra bonus sin if you've screwed up a family with kids, who will also be hurt. And if you conduct your adultery as a public figure whose family will be totally dragged through the gutter in extremely public ways, well you've hit the sin jackpot.

* Murder: Person murdered is hurt, and also prevented from doing anything else they might have done in life, and so forth for ramifications that ripple far beyond that specific person. Usually murderer suffers quite a bit as well. So, also, sin.

What you see there above is a rational, internally consistent moral system, which does not depend on some imaginary being to lay down arbitrary rules. And it's probably worth noting that my system and yours agree on all those sins except the one in which no one is harmed. That is, teh gay.

I am fully aware that you can construct a moral system with a diety at the top of it, supposedly telling you what to do. When are you going to conquer your ignorance to the extent of realizing that you can also make one that does not involve a diety? I won't ask you to believe in it, but simply to acknowlege that it can be done.
posted by rusty at 7:25 PM on November 2, 2006


That would be kind of silly, wouldn't it? You quitting your job because some random person accused you of something criminal and hypocritical? Unless there was, ya know, some merit. The guy obviously did it or he wouldn't have quit.

The bylaws [of the National Association of Evangelicals] state that when an allegation of immorality is made, this process is triggered, where he puts himself on leave. The outside board makes the final decision.

now, which part of that do you not understand?
posted by quonsar at 7:25 PM on November 2, 2006


Sin is what God says it is. Period.
posted by konolia at 7:32 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


Good thing we sorted that one out.
posted by Hildegarde at 7:35 PM on November 2, 2006 [2 favorites has favorites]


Who is this 'God' character of which you speak?
posted by jettloe at 7:35 PM on November 2, 2006


konolia: Awesome. More shrimp for me!
posted by rusty at 7:35 PM on November 2, 2006 [2 favorites has favorites]


You know, that same gaydar that flashes a red light whenever an evangelical tells another man he's "bringing [his] desire to the surface so he can eliminate it," is the same gaydar that pings when I see GWB. Really.
posted by maxwelton at 7:36 PM on November 2, 2006


Let's all be really quiet and see if we can hear what God's telling us!

Oh no - wait, he wrote it all down! Don't question why we think an ancient book of mythology was really actually written by God, though. Just assume it is. It's easier to not question anything.
posted by odinsdream at 7:37 PM on November 2, 2006


The bylaws [of the National Association of Evangelicals] state that when an allegation of immorality is made, this process is triggered, where he puts himself on leave.

Gaping Denial-of-Service Vulnerability. Good thing these people aren't in the software business.
posted by jsonic at 7:37 PM on November 2, 2006 [4 favorites has favorites]


But man has always determined what it is that God has "said".
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 7:38 PM on November 2, 2006 [2 favorites has favorites]


And Ted Haggard is incapable of sin simply because he's a preacher? That's odd, because I seem to remember other men of God sinning. That said, skepicism is a good thing. I'm skeptical of this whole thing myself, but not because I think Haggard is incapable of sin.
posted by lekvar at 7:38 PM on November 2, 2006


Sin is what God says it is. Period.

Maybe so, but it probably isn't what you say it is.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:39 PM on November 2, 2006 [2 favorites has favorites]


By the way, you should check out the book WHAT THE BIBLE REALLY SAYS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY. I think you'd be flabbergasted by how deeply you've been brainwashed.

konolia -- a starting point: The Bible and Homosexuality.
posted by ericb at 7:40 PM on November 2, 2006


The penalty for going to work on Sunday (Exodus 35:1-3) is death.

Wait wait wait, don't clergymen work on Sunday?
posted by peeedro at 7:40 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


By the way, the last time we talked, God was bemused that we had set up such firm boundaries around these terms "gay" and "straight", so I'm not so sure God's conception of sin is quite what you think it is on that topic. But perhaps your conversations with God aren't are clear and cogent as mine have been. And, I mean, I asked directly. So I feel pretty confident.
posted by Hildegarde at 7:40 PM on November 2, 2006


odinsdream: Let's all be really quiet and see if we can hear what God's telling us!

Good advice!

odinsdream: Oh no - wait, he wrote it all down! Don't question why we think an ancient book of mythology was really actually written by God, though. Just assume it is. It's easier to not question anything.

That's how fundamentalists like konolia think, not how the Christian tradition has ever worked.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 7:42 PM on November 2, 2006


Konolia, your God says all of the things pasted below (courtesy of Ericb's post just above, which you ignored) are a sin.

Does this mean you are a sinner?

Also, I noticed on your profile that your nickname comes from your grandmother, who divorced twice. Isn't divorce a sin? Hmmm, maybe you'll be seeing your grandma in hell . . .

Women must not wear gold or pearls (1 Timothy 2:9).

A woman must not "teach or... have authority over a man" (1 Timothy 2:12).

People must not "not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" (Leviticus 19:19).

Men must not shave (Leviticus 19:27).

People must not eat rabbit (Leviticus 11:6), pork (Leviticus 11:7), or shellfish (Leviticus 11:9-12).

It is "disgraceful" for a woman to speak out in church (1 Corinthians 14:34-36) and that if she has any questions, she should wait till she gets home and ask her husband.

The penalty for going to work on Sunday (Exodus 35:1-3) is death.

The man who rapes a virgin should buy her from her father (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) and marry her.
posted by mijuta at 7:43 PM on November 2, 2006


taking joy in the pain of others is always wrong.
posted by koeselitz at 8:35 PM EST on November 2


I hear you and agree. However, when someone has been preaching hatred against a group of which he is a member, that tends to get folks riled. It's dishonest and evil. Reverend Al was out on the stump the other day with his speech about how evangelicals spend too much time on the sins of the bedroom while ignoring the sins of neglecting to care for the poor, the sick and the hungry. Jesus didn't make himself a big church to line his pockets, and he cared as much if not more for the least of society as for the winners, judgmental as he might be about morals. These scum who subvert that message for their own personal gain, and do it at the expense of anyone they can train their minions to hate are ripe for payback when their hypocrisy is revealed. Preaching hatred and lining your pockets in the name of the Lord is no path to Heaven. They will face their maker one day, but now, when their true colors are shown, they should not be surprised that people are angry.
posted by caddis at 7:46 PM on November 2, 2006


The penalty for going to work on Sunday (Exodus 35:1-3) is death.

um, sabbath was saturday. and Christ himself violated that law because - well, if you wanted to know you'd read the damn thing yourself. really, your ignorance of the topic is such that you're far better just shutting up.
posted by quonsar at 7:46 PM on November 2, 2006


When Jesus returns as a gay, black, homeless man with AIDS, these fundamentalists will be the first to hammer in those nails.
posted by Hildegarde at 7:49 PM on November 2, 2006 [8 favorites has favorites]


Does this mean you are a sinner?

absolutely. let he who is without it cast the first stone. what a bunch of barking monkeys in this thread.
posted by quonsar at 7:50 PM on November 2, 2006


Relinking to incredible video. Do you think when he looks in the camera he's really talking to this escort guy?
posted by MarkO at 7:51 PM on November 2, 2006


I noticed on your profile that your nickname comes from your grandmother, who divorced twice. Isn't divorce a sin?

Is divorce a sin?
"For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matthew 19:6).

"What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Mark 10:9).

"Let none be faithless to the wife of his youth. For I hate divorce, says the Lord the God of Israel..." (Malachi 2:15-16).

posted by ericb at 7:52 PM on November 2, 2006


Enjoy it, because soon enough Richard Dawkins is going to be spotted having gay sex with a Jehovah's Witness or saying "God bless you" when someone sneezes. And then, some other group replaces you. Probably a politicized Church of SubGenius campaigning for a constitutional amendment guaranteeing right to slack.

As an atheist, Dawkins being taken down a notch I have no problem with. He doesn't exactly represent the most positive view of atheism. And a constitutional right to slack sounds damn good to me.
posted by spaceman_spiff at 7:54 PM on November 2, 2006


ericb: and yet man puts asunder pretty much everything God hath joined. and men are faithless to everything. y'all totally miss the point in your attempts to make yourselves feel clever and superior.
posted by quonsar at 7:56 PM on November 2, 2006


C'mon folks, give the man some credit. At least he was screwing grown men.

I don't get the "at least." What's wrong with what he did?

Or is my irony detector just miscalibrated?
posted by poweredbybeard at 8:44 AM ACST on November 3 [+] [!]


The last I checked prostitution was still a crime and adultery is usually considered rather bad. Now these two are certainly arguable, I know, but when you throw in the years of hypocrisy the trifecta makes for a rather shitty set of values there doncha think?
posted by Pollomacho at 7:57 PM on November 2, 2006


well, if you wanted to know you'd read the damn thing yourself. really, your ignorance of the topic is such that you're far better just shutting up.

Personally, I could care less about what the Bible actually says. I have a problem with people telling me how I should live my life based on their interpretation of passages from what they perceive to be a holy book by which one should adhere to leading their lives. It's the "our way or the highway bullshit" which often comes back to bite them in their hypocritical asses.

BTW -- since the modern Christian sabbath is Sunday, one can indeed reinterpret the original Greek/Hebrew translations to apply to our modern calendar.
posted by ericb at 7:58 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


ericb: and yet man puts asunder pretty much everything God hath joined. and men are faithless to everything. y'all totally miss the point in your attempts to make yourselves feel clever and superior.

I don't feel clever or superior. By all means I bow to those with greater capacity to interpret their holy book for me! Thank you for your holy enlightenment.
posted by ericb at 7:59 PM on November 2, 2006


"Is Divorce A Sin -- In Jesus' name, David J. Stewart"

Argue with Dave, not me!
posted by ericb at 8:00 PM on November 2, 2006


quonstar: I was just riffing on how silly it was. It looks like most of ericb's canned in-your-face-isms are cut n paste from googling.
posted by peeedro at 8:03 PM on November 2, 2006


Does this mean you are a sinner?

to expand on what quonsar said above, Christians believe everyone is a sinner, with one exception (Jesus...'cept he did falter right there at the end, but that was necessary you see...). their faith is in the idea that God will forgive them their sin if they ask Him to do so, predicated on Jesus' descent to hell for 3 days (he did falter after all) being enough for everyone. so dear konolia can eat all the shrimp in the world if only she feels bad about it and believes that asking her ever loving God for forgiveness afterwards will clear her record in St. Peter's book of names.

I can get behind this idea--- it's a good one for coping with the freaky weird shit that life hands you day to day. my problem is with the associated evangelism, the idea that everyone must be in lockstep on it. in other words, I don't like evangelicals for their persistence with others despite the plank in their eye.
posted by carsonb at 8:05 PM on November 2, 2006



Does anyone hear the explicit echo of "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" in "I never had sex with a man in Denver"?

That Harper's article was one of the scariest things I've read in ages-- he's literally preaching that people should blame demons for the problems with America and thousands of people are buying it, along with a bizarre call for completely unregulated markets (do you think he really wants no FDA? even ultralibertarian Reason magazine doesn't want no FDA).

He preaches that we need to oppose homosexuality because the Bible opposes it-- but why isn't he out there stumping for the death penalty for not keeping the Sabbath or defying one's parents or adultery? Why isn't he supporting polygamy? The Bible advocates all of those things as well-- and while Jesus said no polygamy, he didn't say no gayness, so why are they "picking and chosing" what to follow from the Old Testament like some wimpy liberals?

Yeah, the hypocrisy makes me ill and while taking joy in someone's downfall (the newspapers wouldn't have gone with these accounts if they didn't have or know of serious evidence to support the guy's claims-- they're far too afraid of lawsuits) is indeed wrong, celebrating a return perhaps to reason and to government at least checked by some sane people is perfectly acceptable.
posted by Maias at 8:06 PM on November 2, 2006


Google is your friend. But are not these proscriptions accurate and from the Bible?
"Exodus 35

1 And Moses gathered all the congregation of the children of Israel together, and said unto them, These are the words which the LORD hath commanded, that ye should do them.

2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.

3 Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day.
Seventh Day -- Saturday or Sunday -- who cares? Oh, enlighten us, oh holy ones!
posted by ericb at 8:07 PM on November 2, 2006


this thread is surprisingly gay.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 8:07 PM on November 2, 2006


Christians believe everyone is a sinner

Depends on which brand of Chistianity you are buying here doesn't it?

Some believe they are without sin and the non-believers are the sinners. Others are the origional sin types. Some believe that we would be doomed sinners if not for the sacrifice of Jeebus. The list goes on...
posted by Pollomacho at 8:09 PM on November 2, 2006


Just because it looks like this guy was a big hypocrite who failed to follow his own religion as closely as he warned others to do does not mean folks should be in here trashing religion. They hypocrisy is with Haggard and even perhaps with his rigid and market driven interpretation of Christianity. Please show some respect for people and their beliefs. The same way I respect your decision to not believe, please respect mine to believe. I seek not to impose my belief upon you, and please seek not to impose yours upon me. I am up for a polite engagement upon the subject, but please save your histrionics for your interactions with your parents for taking away your tv.
posted by caddis at 8:11 PM on November 2, 2006


heh. waaaay off topic, but I was bugged by my sentence construction there at the end last comment. I wish I'd put it in a way that allowed use of the term 'plankeye', which had some resonance with me. I wondered at that, and it took me a few minutes to bring up the memory of that same-styled Christian rock band.
posted by carsonb at 8:11 PM on November 2, 2006


well, if you wanted to know you'd read the damn thing yourself.

Problem is, when people actually do read the damned thing, as ericb has done, it actually says a lot of awful things that few of its proponents care to acknowledge. It's dishonest, but then when homosexuality gets compared with pedophilia, what can you expect?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:12 PM on November 2, 2006


Does anyone hear the explicit echo of "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" in "I never had sex with a man in Denver"?

Queerty.com headline: "I Did Not Having Sexual Relations With That Hooker"
posted by ericb at 8:12 PM on November 2, 2006


whoa ! slow down people i'm trying to read and eat pie.
posted by nola at 8:13 PM on November 2, 2006


gay shrimp pie.
posted by nola at 8:13 PM on November 2, 2006


"Cut n paste from googling"? Horrors!

Konolia was claiming the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin.

EricB was showing that the Bible states a lot of ridiculous things are sinful.

An easy way to get biblical quotes quickly is to use The Google.
posted by mijuta at 8:14 PM on November 2, 2006


God has impressed the natural law upon the heart of every person.
For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' -- Mark 17:21-23
Emphasis mine
posted by boaz at 8:14 PM on November 2, 2006


For ericb and mijuta, you might note that very observant Jews keep some of those things you list. See numbers 367 and 345, for example. They aren't all necessarily discarded bits of the Bible.

Of course, for Jesus' teachings on the Law of Moses (the source of the Leviticus and Deuteronomy quotes), you might see the ever-excellent Brick Testament.
posted by Upton O'Good at 8:15 PM on November 2, 2006


I wish I'd put it in a way that allowed use of the term 'plankeye', which had some resonance with me. I wondered at that, and it took me a few minutes to bring up the memory of that same-styled Christian rock band.

Heh. I vaguely remember them.
posted by EarBucket at 8:16 PM on November 2, 2006


Heck -- if someone had used Wikipedia^ as a source, someone might have charged that the biblical passages were fake and made-up "in-your-face-isms!"
posted by ericb at 8:17 PM on November 2, 2006


Maias: the newspapers wouldn't have gone with these accounts if they didn't have or know of serious evidence to support the guy's claims-- they're far too afraid of lawsuits

That sounds implausible to me. In the U.S. it seems that all the papers wait until the first one publishes a sleazy story, and then the rest feel free to report it because it is now a news story. The standards for libel in the U.S. are pretty strict, and so long as the papers are not misrepresenting what this accuser is saying, I don't see how they could be risking legal trouble. Does anyone here have any real legal knowledge in this area?

I mentioned earlier that I'd had a false accusation made against me. Local newspapers at the time reported the accusation without any support beyond the fact that someone had made the accusation. Are you saying I could have sued them after it became clear that my accuser was mentally unstable and was lying? That sounds really, really implausible to me.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 8:17 PM on November 2, 2006


Replace "homosexuality" with pedophilia and see how that reads.

Interesting how you seem to be drawing an equivalence between homosexuality and pedophilia. As though the very notion of consent is meaningless.

And don't try to sweep it under the theological rug by dissembling and hand-waving of the type of "as far as God is concerned all sin is equal."

I'd just like you to come out and say it.

As far as you're concerned, are they, or are they not equivalent?
posted by chimaera at 8:17 PM on November 2, 2006


gay shrimp pie

Mmmm...in addition to shrimp bread at Jazz Fest, me loves shrimp po-boys when in New Orleans.
posted by ericb at 8:20 PM on November 2, 2006


it's a pie made with tastie gay shrimp. i know , i watched the gay shrimp suck each other off , right before i made the pie. so i'm sure it's gay shrimp pie.


want a slice?
posted by nola at 8:21 PM on November 2, 2006


Google is your friend. But are not these proscriptions accurate and from the Bible?

yes, they are from the Bible. presumably, yes, they are accurately quoted (though from which translation? and how accurate can that be after a coupla millenia?). the problem is that quoting the Bible this way leaves out context, which any spin technician can tell you is a great way to get a rise outta people.

if your point is that the Bible is not to be taken literally (commandments and beattitues aside), bravo. otherwise, leave off.
posted by carsonb at 8:21 PM on November 2, 2006


I think the point is that SOME of the bible passages are taken literally by people like konolia and Haggard, etc. The ones that suit their needs. The others are "open to interpretation". Either that or they are not mentioned at all.
posted by c13 at 8:25 PM on November 2, 2006


if your point is that the Bible is not to be taken literally (commandments and beattitues aside), bravo. otherwise, leave off.

It is. And as a gay man, I resent those who seek to relegate me as a second-class citizen with unequal rights in the "land of the free and home of the brave."

If they can live lives of sin and be free, let me do the same. Fuck 'em, if they can't see the hypocrisy of those who lead them -- whether in their church (Haggard, assuming the allegations prove to be true) and our government (Foley et al).
posted by ericb at 8:25 PM on November 2, 2006 [5 favorites has favorites]


has any deleted thread ever been resurrected, in the history of MetaFilter?

There is also an occluded thread about the 12th Imam that will, uh, unocclude one day.
posted by Falconetti at 8:26 PM on November 2, 2006


i'll drink to that.
posted by nola at 8:27 PM on November 2, 2006


The guy in that painting from New Life Church looks suspiciously like Scott Bakula...

Hey wait a minute! This is an artist's rendering of chapter 7 from my Quantumn Leap fanfic novel, Al's Well that Ends Well!
posted by nomad at 8:27 PM on November 2, 2006 [2 favorites has favorites]


No surprize. Wealth, power, prestige, corruption and lust are merely different petals on the same turd blossom.
posted by chance at 8:28 PM on November 2, 2006


"Sin is what God says it is. Period."

You talk to him/her/it? You should start a megachurch.
posted by lordrunningclam at 8:30 PM on November 2, 2006


Boaz, we have the natural law imprinted on our hearts, but we also can twist it and distort it and convince ourselves that things are right that are really wrong. As a result, conscience is not always right, even though it is always wrong not to follow your conscience, even when your conscience is wrong. The disagreements between the details of the various ways the Christian tradition has thought about these matters are complicated, and nothing we can settle here, but the struggle between good and evil within the human heart is also complicated, so there's something appropriate about that complexity.

The story fundamentalists tell is far too simple, not to mention too easily twisted in the hands of individual preachers. By the way, the spectacle of theological illiterates googling for proof texts is pathetic. Can people really not be bothered to learn something substantial about views they disagree with?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 8:33 PM on November 2, 2006 [2 favorites has favorites]


"{My gaydar works just fine and his did not ping it."

This thread has brought me tears of laughter. Y'know that just because Nathan Lane's a flamer doesn't mean that there aren't total homos all around you, right? They're the crypto-queers and they drink blood!

"not all gays wear horns and forked tails so as to be easily recognizable by good christian woman like yourself."

The Russian gays have stripes!

"Sin is what God says it is. Period."

Too bad yer playin' some kinda Chinese telephone with 'im.
posted by klangklangston at 8:35 PM on November 2, 2006


Google is your friend.
Gaygle is your special friend.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 8:36 PM on November 2, 2006


If they can live lives of sin and be free, let me do the same.

amen.
posted by carsonb at 8:37 PM on November 2, 2006


Wikipedia has this up already, but:
Because of recent vandalism or other disruption, editing of this article by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled. Such users may discuss changes, request unprotection, or create an account.

posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 8:41 PM on November 2, 2006


From TIME: 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America (1/30/05):

OPENING UP THE UMBRELLA GROUP: Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals ... Every Monday he is one of just a handful of evangelical leaders patched into a conference call with West Wing staffers to discuss policy concerns. “We wanted him (Bush) to use the force of his office to campaign aggressively for a federal marriage amendment, which he did not do,” says Haggard. He is working to broaden his group’s agenda. “With the growth of evangelicalism worldwide,” says Haggard, “we need to impact the culture worldwide.”
posted by scblackman at 8:41 PM on November 2, 2006


Can people really not be bothered to learn something substantial about views they disagree with?

that would require thinking ... people's heads might get hurt
posted by pyramid termite at 8:43 PM on November 2, 2006



posted by squirrel at 8:51 PM on November 2, 2006


Hm. Funny img worked in preview. Oh well.
posted by squirrel at 8:52 PM on November 2, 2006


"By the way, the spectacle of theological illiterates googling for proof texts is pathetic. Can people really not be bothered to learn something substantial about views they disagree with?"

Well see, Peeping Thomist, the thing is that this is an online discussion in which time is of the essence. So if someone were to go to divinity school and become as enlightened as you, it would be years before they could post comments as brilliant as yours.

In essence, I believe EricB's only goal--as is mine--is to show that the Bible describes some pretty ridiculous stuff as sinful.

I can't speak for EricB's theological knowledge. I myself was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school for the majority of my education, and have read and studied the Bible more than a few times. I'm well aware that the Bible was written by different people at different periods in time, that the issue of translation raises many thorny questions, that there are large sections of biblical writings that aren't in "the Bible," etc.

I'm not trying to prove by posting on this thread that I'm a biblical scholar or that I know more about religion than anyone else. I'm just countering a statement made by an evangelical who claims (among other things) that homosexuality is a sin.
posted by mijuta at 8:55 PM on November 2, 2006


Can people really not be bothered to learn something substantial about views they disagree with?

No! See, we have better things to do. Not because "thinking may hurt our heads" or some such shit, but because I'd say pretty much all of us thought about religion and found it was not for us, for whatever reasons. So learning the religious texts just so we can have conversations with you people is a waste of time for us. We disagree with your views. You disagree with ours. And that's fine. But the thing is, you're bothering us.
We don't dress up in white shirts and black pants, hop on a bike and come knocking on your door to talk about the wonders of atheism or agnosticism. We don't stand on street corners and hand out cheap copies of Origin of Species. Nor do we get on national TV or trash the shortwave spectrum with ravings about how Darwin is "teh kewl". We don't care which hole your stick your dicks in, who you live with and how you designate yourself on tax forms. And we want the same of you. Read your bible, play with snakes, go to church. You thing we'll burn in hell? Fine. More room for you in heaven. Just stay the fuck away from us. That is really all we want. It's too late to have nice polite discussions -- you've annoyed the hell out of us.
posted by c13 at 8:59 PM on November 2, 2006 [12 favorites has favorites]


It's a well known fact that the Bible is God's direct word, but once those words have been fetched from Google's cache, something happens to them that makes them lose their spark of divinity.
posted by rks404 at 9:01 PM on November 2, 2006 [2 favorites has favorites]


When I was younger, I decided to read the bible. I admit that I was pretty prejudiced: based on the few stories that I'd heard, and what people said about it, I fully expected it to be filled with deep, moral lessons. I was completely horrified by what I found. By the time I got to the book of Joshua, it was pretty obvious that my expectations were just plain wrong. I never felt any need to memorize sections of the bible (even before I grew disenchanted with it, as I just don't memorize things that I can easily look up). That said, I remember the gist of many parts. When I want to quote accurately (because gods forbid I should misquote) I google-search to get the exact text. Presumably this is what ericb did.

Instead of mocking the use of google, why don't you address his points? You say that they're out of context? Try supplying the context then. I'm familiar with that section of the bible. It's just plain terrible. The quotes were not out of context. I'm aware that there are numerous christian traditions that explain why christians don't follow Leviticus. I'd like an explanation of how you can follow part but not all of it.
posted by Humanzee at 9:04 PM on November 2, 2006


Konolia was claiming the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin.
EricB was showing that the Bible states a lot of ridiculous things are sinful.

mijuta: sounds like a waste of time to me. One side points to the Bible for guidance while the other side pointing to the Bible to show that the Bible isn't the best place to go far advice on how to live your life. How can that ever lead to any discourse, let alone have any hope of broadening a person's perspectives?
posted by peeedro at 9:04 PM on November 2, 2006


Technically if you go by that one passage in Leviticus it is only bisexuality that is a sin -- "lay with a man as with a woman". And to take the argument to the pedantic level, it's really only wrong if you have anal sex with the ladies as well as the gents.
posted by clevershark at 9:04 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


The main reason to believed the accusations is that the Denver Post is reporting them. They investigated for 2 months. There must be another shoe to drop!
posted by LarryC at 9:05 PM on November 2, 2006


I don't know about gaydar, but my "sleazdar" pinged loudly whenever I saw this guy interviewed on TV. Maybe it was just the funny flare in his upper lip, but his untimely shit-eating grin added to the effect (no pun intended, really). My biggest hope is that this blows the doors off the Christian-Right-Republican's "big tent" myth.
posted by Dougoh at 9:05 PM on November 2, 2006


"I never had a homosexual relationship with a man in Denver." ≈ "It depends on what the meaning of the word jizz is."
posted by rob511 at 9:06 PM on November 2, 2006 [2 favorites has favorites]


Boaz, we have the natural law imprinted on our hearts, but we also can twist it and distort it and convince ourselves that things are right that are really wrong.

Yes, I've talked to plenty of Christians who like to claim that God is that voice in your heart .... except when it's telling you to fuck gay prostitutes. One's heart, I suppose, is always divided against itself.

Can people really not be bothered to learn something substantial about views they disagree with?

You don't have to know the difference between a tertiary progression and a solar return to know that astrology is bullshit.
posted by boaz at 9:11 PM on November 2, 2006


ericb & co.:

Your examples are from the Old Testament, mostly from Leviticus. Almost all Christians believe that those proscriptions were superseded by the new covenant of the New Testament. Yes, there's stuff about homosexuality in the Old Testament, but that's as irrelevant as the stuff about shellfish, mixing fibers, leprosy, whatever; those rules don't apply anymore. This is a gigantic point, and I can't believe nobody's made it yet here.

Think of it like a contract. God made a contract with the Israelites, and so those were the rules in play for a long time. Then Christ made a new contract with God's people; the old contract has been replaced by the new one. The new one is like an edited version of the old -- it incorporates some of the old version's big elements, definitely, but not every detail was carried over.

There's also some stuff about homosexuality in the New Testament, though -- in Corinthians.* That's what almost all of the modern Christian condemnation of homosexuality is based on. If you want to be all "Durr hurr, you don't follow your own rules," look through Paul's letters and find rules from there that fundamentalists don't seem to be following (you won't have any trouble doing that). Other rules from Leviticus, or the rest of the OT, are irrelevant here.

*There are still plenty of problems with this. First, many Christians don't believe Paul was infallible. And second, whoa boy translation issues.

Please take this opportunity to find out what you're talking about.
posted by booksandlibretti at 9:15 PM on November 2, 2006


knoalia: I met him a decade ago. Along with my husband I talked to him one on one. My gaydar works just fine and his did not ping it.

Worst... justification... ever.

My gaydar has missed some notable gay men, and triggered on some notable straight men.

Besides, do any of you believe for a minute that if this was true it would take THREE FREAKING YEARS for it to come to light????? As well known as he is????

Given how thick the culture of silence is, yes. Do I think these accusations are true? Don't know. I'm not going to be surprised either way.

dw: Enjoy it, because soon enough Richard Dawkins is going to be spotted having gay sex with a Jehovah's Witness or saying "God bless you" when someone sneezes.

Except that I don't think that there is a taboo among atheists for having gay sex with a Jehovah's Witness (does ex-Pentacostal count?) or saying "God bless you" when someone sneezes. For that matter, I can even say the Lord's Prayer with a reasonable lack of fear that I won't be inflicted with boils or turned into salt.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:16 PM on November 2, 2006


The guy in that painting from New Life Church looks suspiciously like Scott Bakula...

What I wanna know is, what's with the mallet he's holding? Did he get killed by Donkey Kong?
posted by you just lost the game at 9:16 PM on November 2, 2006


Wow, jeez, sorry everyone for the callout on ericb for using the google. As mush as I disagree with her, I though that shooting down Konolia through personal attacks against her grandmother and dueling Bible verses with her were in poor form. I guess all bets are off when we have Christians on the loose.
posted by peeedro at 9:18 PM on November 2, 2006


God made a contract with the Israelites, and so those were the rules in play for a long time. Then Christ made a new contract with God's people; the old contract has been replaced by the new one.

Well, the Muslims would argue that THAT "new contract" has itself been superseded by yet another.
posted by clevershark at 9:20 PM on November 2, 2006


Peeedro, you're missing the point entirely. It's really very simple.

Konolia claims homosexuality is a sin.

I claim that's pretty ridiculous. Just look at all these other things the Bible says is a sin. Could it be that you're cherry picking?

The End. See, that's it!

In other words: Konolia wasn't pointing to the Bible for guidance--she was pointing to it to condemn me and other gay people.

And I wasn't claiming the Bible isn't the best place to go for advice on how to live your life. Again, see above.

As for "discourse," I think Konolia pretty much shut down when people started asking her real questions and she claimed sin is what her God says it is.

Again, I'm not anti-Bible or anti-religion. I'm against people equating homosexuality with sinfulness and pedophilia.
posted by mijuta at 9:20 PM on November 2, 2006


Try supplying the context then...I'd like an explanation of how you can follow part but not all of it.

I'm not sure if this is directed at me or someone else, so I'll just say that I'll only go so far playing the apologist for a religion I'm no longer a paying member of. well, that, and what I meant by context is it's important to make the distinction between the Old and New Testaments when discussing Christianity via Bible quotes.
posted by carsonb at 9:21 PM on November 2, 2006


Other rules from Leviticus, or the rest of the OT, are irrelevant here.

Translation: I don't like it when non-Christians pick and choose parts of the Bible to point out hypocrisy, but it's okay for Christians to pick and choose parts of the Bible to be hypocritical about.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:22 PM on November 2, 2006


I met him a decade ago. Along with my husband I talked to him one on one. My gaydar works just fine and his did not ping it.

I call bullshit on your gaydar. And your God. I'm very curious about when the last time God talked to you and told you what sin was.

I'm reminded of Terry Pratchett's Monstrous Regiment:

On Commandments
"This is a holy book with an appendix?"
"Exactly, sir."
"In a ring binder?"

-----
On Abominations
Vimes: "The colour blue?"
Chinney: "Correct, sir."
Vimes: "What's abominable about the colour blue? It's just a colour! The sky is blue!"
Chinney: "Yes, sir. Devout Nugganites try not to look at it these days."

------
More On Abominations
"So what we have here is a country that tries to run itself on the commandments of a god who, the people feel, may be wearing his underpants on his head. Has he Abominated underpants?"

"No, sir," Chinny sighed. "But it's probably only a matter of time."
posted by smallerdemon at 9:22 PM on November 2, 2006


Humanzee: Instead of mocking the use of google, why don't you address his points? You say that they're out of context? Try supplying the context then.

The "context" is that these books didn't fall from the sky, and you have to look at how they've been read within the communities that took the trouble to preserve them if you want to figure out what they mean. Your decision when you were younger to "read the Bible," as though "the Bible" were a single work, speaks well of your good intentions, but highlights the abject cultural deprivation that is the only "context" many bright and serious young people today have ever known.

Did you know that until as late as the 12th century, no one ever had a copy of "the Bible" as a single document? There was an agreed-upon list of texts in the canon, and monasteries copied these texts and made sure that each monastery had a complete set of the texts on the list. The idea that "the Bible" is a single work, and that hence the right way to read it is to sit down and start with Genesis and end with Revelations, is one of the many bad fruits of fundamentalism. People like Haggard and konolia are largely to blame for the fact that when you were younger it seemed reasonable to just pick up "the Bible" and start reading. You soon came to see what a misguided decision that was, but I don't think you yet understand why.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 9:24 PM on November 2, 2006


"I thought that shooting down Konolia through personal attacks against her grandmother and dueling Bible verses with her were in poor form."

Peeedo, maybe you'd feel differently if you were gay. Because when someone equates you with a pedophile--well, it's a pretty brutal insult. And then to also claim that you're going to hell because of who you are? Yeah, that's not very nice either. Frankly, I think Konolia--and her grandmother--got off pretty easy. As for the dueling Bible verses, not sure why you think that's in poor form. I think it's in poor form that Konolia never answered anyone else's posts. But I think evangelicals are used to hiding out when confronted with reality.
posted by mijuta at 9:30 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


I guess all bets are off when we have Christians on the loose.

Bullshit. All bets are off when someone deliberately decides to trot out the old "homosexuality is no different from pedophilia" canard.
posted by clevershark at 9:30 PM on November 2, 2006


Translation: I don't like it when non-Christians pick and choose parts of the Bible to point out hypocrisy, but it's okay for Christians to pick and choose parts of the Bible to be hypocritical about.

right up there with KJV.
posted by carsonb at 9:31 PM on November 2, 2006


Other rules from Leviticus, or the rest of the OT, are irrelevant here.

Right. Except what Jesus said on that subject was:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
That's Matthew 5:17-20 for those interested.
posted by boaz at 9:31 PM on November 2, 2006


Boaz, did you cut and paste those lines from The Google? Because when you do that it makes them "lose their spark of divinity."
posted by mijuta at 9:34 PM on November 2, 2006


If people want to pray and be afraid of god and follow arbitrary rules that don't seem to express the love, forgiveness and downright self-determination that my understanding of the concept of Jesus allows, well then god bless 'em, as long as everybody is a consenting adult, super duper. Just leave me and mine out of it. As several people upthread have said the issue is people imposing their beliefs on others. Fuck that shit.
posted by Divine_Wino at 9:34 PM on November 2, 2006


I think it's in poor form that Konolia never answered anyone else's posts.

Agreed. Accusing people of being pedophiles is not a very Christian thing to do.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:34 PM on November 2, 2006


Enough with the Bible, or I start quoting the Fellowship of the Ring. They are equally accurate.

What this is really about is Evangelical Christianity, because no other mainstream christian faith takes the Bible, and the old testament in particular, literally. Evangelical christianity is predomionately the religion of the weak, the 12-steppers and the insulated kids and adults who do not want to engage the Other, or own up to their own shitty behavior.

Don't believe me? This is what Haggard said:
2. If reporters want to interview you, talk with them, but use words that make sense to them. Speak their language. Don't talk about the devil, demons, voices speaking to you, God giving you supernatural revelations, etc. Instead, tell your personal story in common sense language (I was a drunk but God changed me and now I'm sober, I'm grateful, etc.).

How the hell can he generalize that most people's personal stories will be that they were drunks, unless he knows that most of the people in his church get there by way of some AA type group.

The president, Evangelical poster-child, found Jesus when he was 40 because he couldn't stop drinking. No crisis of faith, no outrage at God for the atrocities of the world, no questioning his place in the world. He just couldn't stop drinking Wild Turkey.

So what does he do? He abandons his entire world-view to conform to the letter to a fringe religion. He basically admits taht he can't think for himself or make decisions about his own life, and decides never to do so again, but rather will let the book do his thinking for him.

I've said this before and I'll say it forever. If you had to accept Christ to stop your drinking, drugging, gambling, wife-beating, whatever, then you will always be morally and spiritually inferior to those of us who managed never to have those problems in the first place, or quit on our on resolve. Being born again doesn't erase your past, and it sure as hell doen't make you holier than me.

It makes you weak, and pathetic.

The ultimate "sin" is wanting to say no to something but doing it anyway. You know you shouldn't take that drink, but you do it anyway. That's the ultimate sin, because it is a perversion of the ultimate expression of our humanity - free will. If you need an imaginary beared white God or the bible study group to stop your drinking, then you're turning your free will over to someone else. That's a sin. It's an admission that you can't handle being human and that you don't want to try.

Two people having sex is not a sin. Please get that through your thick skulls before we have to ram it through with a brick.
posted by Pastabagel at 9:35 PM on November 2, 2006 [15 favorites has favorites]


did you cut and paste those lines from The Google?

Don't you think there's a difference between a quotation from the Bible and a copying some else's summary of some verses?
posted by peeedro at 9:36 PM on November 2, 2006


Well, the Muslims would argue that THAT "new contract" has itself been superseded by yet another.

No, they wouldn't. They argue that Jesus was a prophet just like Muhammad, Moses, Adam or John the Baptist. The Christians have just misinterprited and distorted what Jesus taught.

Um, p_T, the Tanakh has been fairly set for the last 2000 years or so, it's this new fangled testement that gives folks trouble.
posted by Pollomacho at 9:39 PM on November 2, 2006


This thread has been so enlightening, informative, and reasoned. People aren't being emotional or irrational. And no insulting intelligence or other users.

It makes we wish we could discuss religion EVERY! SINGLE! DAY! on MetaFilter.
posted by dw at 9:40 PM on November 2, 2006


"Two people having sex is not a sin. Please get that through your thick skulls before we have to ram it through with a brick."

Pastabagel, God bless you.
posted by mijuta at 9:40 PM on November 2, 2006


Thanks for the note, quansar, on the rules of the National Assocation of Evangelicals (NAoE?)- that helps put it into perspective why the guy would randomly resign if he says he didn't do it. Ugh, these situations are always so sad. Someone is straight up lying, and everyone gets hurt in the process- the church, the community, the families. Even if this isn't true, it'll be a cloud over his head for life. I hope the truth, the real truth, whatever that is, comes to the light.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:42 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


Don't you think there's a difference between a quotation from the Bible and a copying some else's summary of some verses?

To be clear, Boaz's quote was of a specific translation of the Bible, not a "summary". If a particular translation of the Bible invalidates boaz's quote, then all other translations invalidate every other interpretation, quotation and rationalization made so far, including those cited by the fundamentalists and apologists here in this thread.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:43 PM on November 2, 2006


Quonsar, you're damn right I feel superior to someone, anyone, who bases their life and income on telling others how to live their lives while simultaneously engaging in what he says other people are going to hell for.

If these allegations are false ones, so be it. The guy is still reprehensible for spewing the very hate that his Jesus tried to quell here on earth.

As for the by-laws of the Evangelicals, please. Here, you sound like you could use a week off -- "I saw quonsar sucking cock." Totally false of course, but it must be investigated to save the children.
posted by bardic at 9:43 PM on November 2, 2006


the Muslims would argue

And the Mormons. And, I'm sure, plenty of groups we've never heard of. But nobody here is talking about them, and that's not what I was trying to explain.

Translation: I don't like it when non-Christians pick and choose parts of the Bible to point out hypocrisy, but it's okay for Christians to pick and choose parts of the Bible to be hypocritical about.

It's not "picking and choosing." The Bible is cut in half. The more recent half is generally held to be more relevant. Is it that surprising? It's not like Christians are saying, "Well, this verse counts, but the one next to it doesn't, but the one after it does" like it's handy to claim. The justification for privileging the new covenant is within the Bible.

Right. Except what Jesus said on that subject was..."I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Fun fact: The word used for "fulfill" can also be translated as "properly explain." Also you get discrepancies like promoting six commandments rather than ten, declaring foods clean that were forbidden in the OT, and so on. A whole lot more, for those interested. The bottom line is that there have been probably billions of words written about this, but my understanding is that it is generally accepted by most modern Christians that the new covenant supersedes the old. (Obviously, I don't know what konolia or Haggard or anyone else in particular believes.)
posted by booksandlibretti at 9:43 PM on November 2, 2006


An interesting "take" on the Haggard situation -- worth the read.
posted by ericb at 9:44 PM on November 2, 2006


What is it with high-level right wingers and gay escorts?
posted by cell divide at 9:48 PM on November 2, 2006


Nitpick: Muslims consider Jesus worthy of reverence as a prophet, but he is not the prophet (Allah's prophet).
posted by bardic at 9:49 PM on November 2, 2006


The more recent half is generally held to be more relevant. Is it that surprising?

I formally invite you to the next gay pride parade here in Philadelphia. We'll walk along the fringes where the wingnuts hold their Leviticus signs high. Or perhaps it will suffice to introduce you to the Constitution Party, which holds numerous Old Testament edicts to heart and promised capital punishment of homosexuals for whomever would have elected them in the 2004 Presidential elections. I won't bother to link to Christian fundamentalist, white supremacist sites. When it comes to rationalizing hatred, any part of the Bible has and will continute to do just fine.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:53 PM on November 2, 2006


Boaz - Matthew 5:17 is quite easy to take out of context, but it is generally understood to refer to the ten commandments, not the entire 5 books of Moses. And it's more about Jesus explaining the law, i.e. the OT prophets got it wrong, and he is setting it right.

booksandlibretti:

And the Mormons. And, I'm sure, plenty of groups we've never heard of. But nobody here is talking about them, and that's not what I was trying to explain.

Amen to that. And what about those who came before, in China and India, for example? What about the Greeks? Western Civilization is based almost entirely on the foundations of greek philosophy, particularly aristole and plato (who btw was bisexual), and they get scarce mention in the OT or the NT.

This literal interpretation of the Bible is not merely a choice of religion - it is a refutation of nearly all of philosophy and psychology. It is basically an admission that no other book or writing can illuminate the human condition, only what is written in the Bible can.

It is anti-intellecualism at its utmost.
posted by Pastabagel at 9:54 PM on November 2, 2006


booksandlibretti, you make a good point (and a simpler one would be to quote the parable of the new wine bursting the old wineskins), but for some further context, consider that many Evangelicals are trying to push through legislation to put the Ten Commandments into schools and courts. They constantly bleat about the need for "old school" moral codes like the one Moses laid out. While I appreciate what you're saying, methinks you're giving them a bit too much credit regarding their imagined desire to have a serious and historically valid discussion about revealed religion. More often, they want to hit people over the head with exactly the sorts of ridiculous OT rules to gain political points, but lo and behold when you point out that anyone who eats a lobster will have to be stoned to death, they tend to get huffy or, like our friend Konolia, disappear. While personal attacks aren't warranted (I do wonder if she thinks a twice-divorced person has any chance to make it out of hell), pointing out her bullshit is entirely appropriate.
posted by bardic at 9:57 PM on November 2, 2006


I won't bother to link to Christian fundamentalist, white supremacist sites.

I will -- but, just to one -- Fred Phelps' and the Westboro Baptist Church's God Hates Fags -- so full of Christian love and tolerance.
posted by ericb at 9:57 PM on November 2, 2006


And has been mentioned, callling a large number of mefites pederasts pales in comparison to any "hurt" she might suffer from literate non-Christians pointing out some glaring flaws in her logic. Actually, it's not logic at all. It's irrational braying.
posted by bardic at 9:58 PM on November 2, 2006


peeping_Thomist: I am well aware of the history of the bible, and how it was pieced together. It seems that you're trying to convince me not to take it literally. Trust me, you don't have to try very hard. My WHOLE POINT (and I strongly suspect, ericb's as well) is that those who want to take it literally (like many do, including most american christian homophobes), should take the whole damned thing literally.

If you want to interpret the bible, go ahead. I won't even argue with you about it (too much), because I personally don't care. On the other hand, if you're interpreting the bible, and preaching hatred of gays, simply producing a quote in the bible that is anti-gay is -by your own methodology- theologically unsound.
posted by Humanzee at 9:59 PM on November 2, 2006


I just realized that I sounded unnecessarily acusatory. I meant "if someone is preaching hatred of gays", not specifically peeping_Thomist.
posted by Humanzee at 10:02 PM on November 2, 2006


Pollomacho: Um, p_T, the Tanakh has been fairly set for the last 2000 years or so, it's this new fangled testement that gives folks trouble.

My point was that no one ever had all the books on either list, either the Hebrew canon or the Christian canon, in a single package before the 12th century, and even after that it was unusual until the Gutenberg revolution. The separate books in the Hebrew Bible and in the New Testament were copied and read separately. To heft "the Bible" and wave it in the air would have been impossible, because it would have been dozens of different scrolls, not a single book, "the Book". Humanzee's decision when he was young to pick up "the Bible" and read "it" was something that just doesn't make any sense unless you've been influenced by fundamentalist nonsense about "the Bible" as something that is to be read apart from Tradition.

When St. Augustine in his famous conversion scene heard the children chanting "tolle, lege!"--"pick up and read!"--what he picked up and read was a copy of the letters of St. Paul. He didn't pick up "the Bible".
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:05 PM on November 2, 2006


Off-topic, but likely of interest, since Foley has been discussed in this thread --

No Foley Ethics Report Before Election Day -- "Lack of report could leave voters wondering."
posted by ericb at 10:07 PM on November 2, 2006


I say, it is great fun to watch the wheels come off the right-wing political religious train. Gosh, it would be nice to see a higher level of sanity in this society.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:07 PM on November 2, 2006


but for some further context, consider that many Evangelicals are trying to push through legislation to put the Ten Commandments into schools and courts.

bardic - I'm with you right up to here. The Evangelical movement has nothing to do with religion. It is about money and power. Don't compare it to the catholic church, cmopare it to walmart.

They want kids dumb because only dumb kids will go to these churches willingly and will grow up and give them money. Think about it: Pat robertson has been on TV for more than a generation - the adults that give him money now were kids that were being bible-programmed to be dumb.

The stuff about moral codes is all about sex. If women are comfortable having sex recreationally and without anxiety, it's game over for these churches, because these women are going to be moms that will raise normal children. These women cannot be controlled by their husbands, because if their husbands are assholes to them, they'll feel justified in cheating. In other words, these women will not be content to stand by their man but will rather continue to look for love if they can't find it at home, because they will think they are entitled to love, and they are, but that doesn't sit well with the marry-and-forget evangelical model.

Every religion in the world has something, some philosophical or spiritual point, to contribute to the world. Except evangelicism. That's religion with the spirituality sucked out and reduced to a set of procedures.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:09 PM on November 2, 2006


My gaydar works just fine and his did not ping it.

How does one learn, I wonder, when one's gaydar, which one thinks is "working fine," is actually allowing gay people to pass unnoticed? How exactly does one learn how accurate one's gaydar is? If you're only getting confirmation from folks you already see as gay, isn't that something of a skewed sample?

Yes, it is. In fact, it is clear that none of us truly knows exactly how well our gaydar is working.

*slams beer down on table*
posted by mediareport at 10:18 PM on November 2, 2006


Humanzee: If you're interpreting the bible, and preaching hatred of gays, simply producing a quote in the bible that is anti-gay is -by your own methodology- theologically unsound.

We agree on that!

I think Scripture and Tradition (not to mention reason itself!) clearly teach that sexual activity outside the context of marriage between a man and a woman is wrong. I also think it's important to formulate this claim in a way that does not single out for special criticism people whose sexual sins tend to involve members of the same sex. In any case, the notion that such matters could be settled via proof texts and google searches is largely due to the harmful influence of fundamentalism on our culture.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:19 PM on November 2, 2006


How exactly does one learn how accurate one's gaydar is?

Take the Gaydar Test!
posted by ericb at 10:21 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


I think Scripture and Tradition (not to mention reason itself!) clearly teach that sexual activity outside the context of marriage between a man and a woman is wrong.

So Abraham and David were sinners? Ancient Hebrews had multiple wives. God, apparently, didn't have a problem with that (he had lots to say about how you treat them, of course).

Your theology is both obvious and tedious to anyone who's taken an intro philosophy course.
posted by bardic at 10:26 PM on November 2, 2006


I also think it's important to formulate this claim in a way that does not single out for special criticism people whose sexual sins tend to involve members of the same sex.

Too late!

Take the Gaydar Test!

Man, what I always suspected is true. I have absolutely no Gaydar. 50% on the nose.
posted by boaz at 10:27 PM on November 2, 2006


Sorry, that came out far too harsh. But I think you're assuming non-Christians in this thread aren't up on textual and historical controversies regarding scripture, and that would be wildly incorrect.
posted by bardic at 10:29 PM on November 2, 2006


Could you have picked up and read in one tome "Aristotle" before the 12th century? The history of book-binding and the history of the books of the bible are separate issues.

There were those in Jesus's time, according to the accounts in the gospels anyway or if you look at the Talmud, that were nit-picking those scrolls so inferring that literal translation four-square fundamentalists is something new and only extant since the 12th century just doesn't hold water. Sure it has an even more ridiculous air now that they are working off translations of translations of translations of rewritten copies of jotted oral tradition, but they aren't the first to nit-pick nor did it start with book-binding.

Incidentally, if you go up into the Tibetan hills you can still find living monasteries where monks meticulously protect, defend, maintain and copy manuscript scrolls. They too heatedly argue about single lines of translated translations of jotted down translations of jotted down interpritations of legendary stories about a great traveling speaker they call Buddha.
posted by Pollomacho at 10:30 PM on November 2, 2006


Other rules from Leviticus, or the rest of the OT, are irrelevant here.

You mean rules like the 10 commandments?
posted by stirfry at 10:34 PM on November 2, 2006


It is not the place of religion to use the law to render moral judgement. That is God's domain, not mankind's.

It's a distinction one wishes more churches would use as a guiding principal. I do recall a bible passage in which Christ himself tells his crew to keep out of politics, "render unto Cæser" and all that.

It occurs to me that we should be calling the evangels 'Paulinists', not Christians. Eversomany of them are much more about Paul's rantings, and much less about Christ's actions.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:34 PM on November 2, 2006


Even when someone is so depraved as to deny the existence of God [...]

LOL XIANS
posted by oncogenesis at 10:35 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


bardic: God, apparently, didn't have a problem with that

Jesus says God allowed some things that were not part of the original plan for humanity, and that God allowed these things because of the hardness of our hearts. Polygamy strikes me as one of those things that, like slavery or divorce, makes sense at a certain stage of cultural development, but later on comes to be seen, rightly, as inferior to other, better ways of organizing things.

When God allowed polygamy, or slavery, or divorce, it wasn't because he "didn't have a problem with it," but rather because the problem he had with it was the kind of problem that can't be addressed by ramming prohibitions down people's throats.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:38 PM on November 2, 2006


The more recent half is generally held to be more relevant. Is it that surprising? ... [M]y understanding is that it is generally accepted by most modern Christians that the new covenant supersedes the old. -- me

I formally invite you to the next gay pride parade here in Philadelphia. We'll walk along the fringes where the wingnuts hold their Leviticus signs high. -- Blazecock Pileon

You're gonna find some people doing anything; I thought I was pretty careful to hedge. My impression is that a large majority of Christians today are more about the NT than the OT. You are going to get sects like Messianic "Jews" who outright disagree. And you'll also get a few of what I think you've seen -- people who hear "homosexuality is wrong" from their minister (based on Corinthians) and run home and Google for bible gays bad and use whatever they can find without worrying about the context. I guess a third category would be people like Phelps who just try to use whatever they can get their hands on to justify their irrational beliefs without worrying about theology or internal consistency, but their brains operate so differently from mine that I don't think I can understand them. And again, they're a tiny, tiny fringe minority.

you make a good point (and a simpler one would be to quote the parable of the new wine bursting the old wineskins) -- bardic

You're perfectly right, but I have no real desire to get into parables with this crowd if I can avoid it. I did some preliminary Googling to see if I could get a good simple explanation to link, and although I didn't see any right away, I did find this book, which I am sure you can no longer remain without.

many Evangelicals are trying to push through legislation to put the Ten Commandments into schools and courts -- bardic

Of course you're right again. To be honest, I think they want the Ten Commandments because they make a relatively simple, and very definite, statement, and they're willing to sacrifice some theology to get there. If something similar were in the NT, I think they'd go with that . . . but the closest definitive summing-up in the NT is probably "Love your neighbor as yourself," which obviously doesn't express what they want. Also, with the Ten Commandments, they can claim Jewish support as well.

So Abraham and David were sinners?

Bardic, am I missing something in your comment? It's a basic concept that everyone is a sinner ("all have sinned") -- and are redeemed not because of personal worthiness, but through God's grace. You bet Abraham and David were sinners, and so is every other Christian, including ministers and priests and saintly old ladies of all kinds. I feel like I must have missed something you're saying...?


You mean rules like the 10 commandments? -- stirfry

Did you miss the part where I said Jesus "promot[ed] six commandments rather than ten"? Check out Matthew 19:17-19 and Mark 10:17-19.
posted by booksandlibretti at 10:42 PM on November 2, 2006


ericb writes "How exactly does one learn how accurate one's gaydar is?

"Take the Gaydar Test!"
You staggeringly accurate at scored 95%

You personally got 19 of the 20 people correct and were better at recognizing girls than guys. Overall, you guessed better than 99% of all test takers.
(I shrug humbly.)
posted by orthogonality at 10:47 PM on November 2, 2006


Pollomacho: There were those in Jesus's time, according to the accounts in the gospels anyway or if you look at the Talmud, that were nit-picking those scrolls so inferring that literal translation four-square fundamentalists is something new and only extant since the 12th century just doesn't hold water.

Those scribes didn't sit at home and pick up "the Bible" and read it from cover to cover waiting for the Holy Spirit to reveal to them what it meant. They were part of a living community that read those texts, and they were initiated into a complex tradition of arguing about those texts, and lining up various authorities to resolve apparent conflicts between them. Every Christian tradition has always had a crucial place for that kind of "nit-picking", and it is something completely different from what fundamentalists do. They rely on the Holy Spirit to speak to the individual person and reveal the meaning of the text, because each fundamentalist is his own pope. You seem to be confusing the act of taking great care with the literal meaning of texts, which is common to all Christians, with fundamentalist proof-texting, which is not.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:50 PM on November 2, 2006


Even when someone is so depraved as to deny the existence of God, the natural law remains at the core of that person's being, commanding him or her to do what is right.

*sniff sniff* I've never been so proud of my depravity. Woo!
posted by smallerdemon at 10:51 PM on November 2, 2006


later on comes to be seen, rightly, as inferior to other, better ways of organizing things.

Man, you're going to feel dumb when God replaces Christianity with something better. ;)
posted by boaz at 10:51 PM on November 2, 2006


"Take the Gaydar Test!"

60%.. Damn. I suck.





Not in THAT way, obviously....
posted by c13 at 10:52 PM on November 2, 2006


He's admitted it now. Better have that gaydar adjusted.
posted by 2sheets at 10:57 PM on November 2, 2006


I wonder what it would be like to have your husband turn out to be sexually attracted to men. Some women I've talked to about it have said it would be devastating to them. Others thought they would be able to cope with it. Not being a woman, it's hard for me to envision. I wouldn't be that upset if my wife were attracted to women, so long as she also wanted to be with me.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 11:01 PM on November 2, 2006


God allowed these things because of the hardness of our hearts. Polygamy strikes me as one of those things that, like slavery or divorce, makes sense at a certain stage of cultural development, but later on comes to be seen, rightly, as inferior to other, better ways of organizing things.


Interesting. God is fallible. That's rather un-Thomist of you to admit.
posted by bardic at 11:03 PM on November 2, 2006


My ex-girlfriend's ex-boyfriend dumped her for a guy. She said she was pretty upset for a while, but she was fine at the end.
posted by c13 at 11:05 PM on November 2, 2006


of course he did it--it amazes me that people don't want to believe the truth.

...Pastor Haggard and so many like him just cannot accept their own humanity. I understand the struggle they face and I sympathize...but at the same time I abhor the choices they make because those choices have impact that is often detrimental to those who have found the capacity to embrace their humanity. In fact, people like Haggard often victimize those who share their same identity because they are fighting an internal battle to deny that very identity. Frankly, the last thing they should be doing is leading others or presenting a persona that suggests they have access to more "truth" than those in their midst. They have simply taken their own denial to an extreme that exceeds that of those they have been able to manipulate and they then all join together in fostering their shared denial by vilifying others.

Look, the bottom line is that we all share one thing...our humanity. When any of us seek to deny the humanity of others, we set in motion the destruction of our shared humanity. ...

posted by amberglow at 11:06 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


He's admitted it now.

He's admitted to something now, anyway, but we're not sure what. It's a tough call. If he admits the sex but denies the drugs, the sobbing trip to rehab is right out as a cover. Choices, choices.
posted by mediareport at 11:08 PM on November 2, 2006


Struggling to reconcile two conflicting emotions:

1) If you were gay, that'd be okay

2) That's.... schadenfreude!
posted by greycap at 11:11 PM on November 2, 2006


peeping_Thomist writes "I think Scripture and Tradition (not to mention reason itself!) clearly teach that sexual activity outside the context of marriage between a man and a woman is wrong."

Well, you've pretty well argued Scripture into a corner in the course of your comments here. It's hard to buy it as an authority on anything at this point. Tradition is the "traditional" bad reason for doing something. I will mention slavery only obliquely.

Let's hear from reason itself! Careful though: reason can be a little more slippery than you've been led to believe. I'll give you two axioms from which to start; argue against them if you care to: pain is bad, pleasure is good.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:11 PM on November 2, 2006


Gaydar, schmaydar! This guy was like the poster child for obviousness.

Intense interest in the private lives of complete strangers is pretty much always prurient, no matter what your cover story.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:12 PM on November 2, 2006


This struck me: ... "This is really routine when any sort of situation like this arises, so we're prepared," ...

routine? how often does this sort of situation happen?
posted by amberglow at 11:13 PM on November 2, 2006


peeping_Thomist writes "When God allowed polygamy, or slavery, or divorce, it wasn't because he 'didn't have a problem with it,' but rather because the problem he had with it was the kind of problem that can't be addressed by ramming prohibitions down people's throats."

This claim seems to deny God's omnipotence. Which is fine, if that's the kind of God you've got.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:14 PM on November 2, 2006


Ooops, no wait, do what I say and not who I do. Um, evil get behind me (and give it to me hard).

Uh, at least Jeff Gannon's back in the news again?
posted by fenriq at 11:14 PM on November 2, 2006


I call bullshit on your gaydar. And your God.

Goddar?
posted by homunculus at 11:14 PM on November 2, 2006


Ok, so after amberglow's link, denying the meth seems to be out. Looks like we've got a "I underestimated the power of Satan's drugs and he led me down a dark path to fornication with men" situation here. Yeah, I think that's the way he'll go.

Sobbing trip to rehab in 3...2...
posted by mediareport at 11:21 PM on November 2, 2006


This is amazing. How much worse can it get for the republicans before next Tuesday, anyway? They're imploding.
posted by mullingitover at 11:25 PM on November 2, 2006


Don't worry, the Dems will find a way to fail to take advantage of this opportunity, too.
posted by mediareport at 11:28 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


I wonder what effect this will have, given that he was such a big political player with the GOP?
Many evangelicals "feel used and taken for granted by the Republican Party,"...
posted by amberglow at 11:29 PM on November 2, 2006


Clips of the voice mails.
posted by bardic at 12:02 AM on November 3, 2006


(FYI, you have to sit through a commercial.)
posted by bardic at 12:02 AM on November 3, 2006


konolia, how's your gaydar vis a vis your husband? Just asking.

(Mine own personal gaydar, scientifically tested via the intertubes just a few moments ago, is at 70%, better at men than women. This is awesome--all those attractive women I think are straight are actually lesbians, which fuels my adolescent fantasies--and if I ever want to become a right-wing law-maker, I'll be able to determine which pages to hire with confidence.)
posted by maxwelton at 12:12 AM on November 3, 2006


Accusing people of being pedophiles is not a very Christian thing to do.

Huh? It is a VERY Christian thing to do. It seems these people are always laying blame or focusing on what other people do. They can't get thier confusing contradictory five thousand year old myths to align with reality... so it's everybody elses fault who doesn't believe?

I have had it with the faithful idiot deists of this world. At worst they are dangerous lunatics bent on world domination. At best they are hypocrites that have no idea, certainly no consensus, of what their sky gods even want. They make shit up as they go along.

"Well, uh, what god or Jesus really MEANT was..."

You have no idea what your God meant. Or what Jesus did, or did not, say. Or if any of them really exist at all.

We might as well speculate on what Gandalf would do if Frodo came out gay.
posted by tkchrist at 12:17 AM on November 3, 2006


"We might as well speculate on what Gandalf would do if Frodo came out gay.

I think he'd be okay with it.
posted by Humanzee at 12:23 AM on November 3, 2006


We might as well speculate on what Gandalf would do if Frodo came out gay.

Dude, did you even see the Lord of the Rings? Gay, dude, totally.
posted by Pollomacho at 12:26 AM on November 3, 2006


I wonder what effect this will have, given that he was such a big political player with the GOP?

Zero. No. Less than zero. Negative eleven.

Christ. If these people are not moved by an unjust war, where it may be that hundreds of thousands of innocents have been murdered by thier downs syndrome president, you think they are going to open their eyes long enough to see one of their beloved Sky God Talkers butt-fucking with a methpipe dangling out of the crack of his ass? Hell no.

They already believe in too many lies at this point. Sky god. WMD. Homoseshuls = Satan.

They. Don't. Care.
posted by tkchrist at 12:29 AM on November 3, 2006


I think, tkchrist, that this is precicely the kind of bullshit "issue" that they do care about.

A few thousand dead "ragheads" who cares. The preacher's a queer, fetch my pitchfork, ma!
posted by Pollomacho at 12:39 AM on November 3, 2006



I think, tkchrist, that this is precicely the kind of bullshit "issue" that they do care about.

Sadly. You may be right. But it won't effect the polls on Tuesday.
posted by tkchrist at 12:52 AM on November 3, 2006


I love pan-fried rabbit with cream gravy.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 1:00 AM on November 3, 2006


peepingThomist: [Fundamentalists] rely on the Holy Spirit to speak to the individual person and reveal the meaning of the text, because each fundamentalist is his own pope.

Quite right too. Where is the Pope in the Gospels? If the Gospels are the word of God made flesh, and He cares for us, then through prayer and thought and reading the teachings of his Son we will be able to make the right moral choices. Otherwise we have to rely on Popes or Kings or posters on websites to tell us what God means when he writes "don't eat shrimp", and these self-appointed prophets are only men and prey to mistake and malice.

Witness the way that the Gospels (the actual teachings and works of Jesus) are corrupted or interpreted by Paul: Paul sought to make the new religon of a monotheistic, poor, anti-establishment cult leader compatible with a Western, civilised, rich Empire. In doing so he claimed the right to pontificate on issues of importance to these decadent Roman lands for his rag-wearing crucified prophet. He did well, brilliantly, but to claim his words are anything other than that of a successful marketing man does not place the Gospels in their correct position of primacy.

But wait, can we go further and say that Paul was not just repackaging but actively subverting the true Christian message? Yes, say many Christians, such as the Free Presbyterian Church, and many followers of Islam. Paul, author of anti-gay passages in Corinthians and elsewhere, is believed by many to be not only misguided but an active agent of the Antichrist.

It is clear that Paul's teachings on homosexuality (the source of most New Testament homophobic references, such as Corinthians) need not be taken as the word of God. We can compare what we have in the real Gospels about homosexuality versus what we have in the real Gospels about poverty. Would Jesus care about the sex of each husband in Elton John's marriage or the contribution of their First-World lifestyle to the environmental destruction of His creation? I know what I think a loving God would say.




I'm an atheist, but I'm a fundamentalist-Protestant atheist. The point is that while discussing religon is fun it won't ever get anywhere - no resolution, no progress. Religon is culturally-determined and there is no external check (c.f. experimentation in science) so we can go on forever arguing Scripture. Only rhetoric in the context of your culture and the exercise of power will change religious thought and teachings. The evangelicals are rich, well-organised, and persuasive: they will determine what the Bible and God says and said in the future.

I'm going to try out my "Catholicism is polytheistic" argument soon, see how that works out. All those saints? Virgin Mary? It's like Hinduism, I tell you! Wheeee!
posted by alasdair at 1:17 AM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


So in addition to the original 'sins' I guess he has to add yesterday's false denials to the list. This guy would have benefited by watching a few episodes of The Wire. You don't call somebody up and ask for "the stuff." The only better soundbite might have been if he had asked Jones to bring his friend Tina over. My spin prediction echoes mediareport's. As far as we know he wasn't stupid enough to ask for sex over the phone, as those were clearly re-up calls. For the evangelical crowd at large they will attempt to turn this into a 'the evil of meth' story and the truly hardcore there are already well conditioned to accept it as a "Control" plot by the demons in Colorado Springs.

As the original post was deleted, I still curious about Dobson's lightning-fast press release decrying media coverage. Can anybody comment on the true sentiment between Dobson and Haggard? The Harper's piece jabs in a bit about Haggard, not Dobson, being invited to the White House for the bill signing.
posted by well_balanced at 1:29 AM on November 3, 2006


You know, anti-gay Evangelical preachers would be a lot more convincing if they could just stay away from the dick.

As for the comments about how this effects the Republican faithful, I'll throw in my $0.02 USD and go with the "not at all" crowd.

First off, he's not running for office. Just because he chats with the president a lot means nothing.

Secondly, we're talking about people that already ignore reality: they think Iraq is going swimmingly, the economy is just grrr-eat, and that "America über Alles" is a workable foreign policy. I don't think one of those bunker-busting nuclear bombs the DoE is developing could break through the protective shell of delusion "the Party faithful" have wrapped themselves in.

Lastly, there are always the DEMONcrats to blame for this as a last resort. Undoubtedly Pastor Ted was tempted into sin. Satan has that power, you know, and the DEMONcrats are the party of Satan. Or some such bullshit.
posted by moonbiter at 1:55 AM on November 3, 2006


he could "not continue to minister under the cloud created by the accusations."

Golden calf worshipping heathen!

The cloud over him may be The Man Himself.

After 40 days and 40 nights Haggard may emerge with some new commandments. Ponder on that.
posted by Tarn at 2:22 AM on November 3, 2006


It bears repeating 2sheet link

The guy admitted some escorting alllegations. Yes Brittany, you're a fag.

Nothing wrong with that. Expecially when you consider IT WAS THE DEVIL ! HE DIDN'T SIN it was the goddamn devil ! Yeah he also stole the cookies from the jar !

Born Again Christian in 3..2..1..
posted by elpapacito at 3:33 AM on November 3, 2006


Ops I forgot

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j272/carolanderic/tehghey.jpg

NSFW
posted by elpapacito at 3:40 AM on November 3, 2006


Yeah. 2,000 years of Christian theology has been reduced to making Jesus your get-out-of-jail/homesexual liason/tax fraud/hypocrisy card.

Like I said up-thread, you mix your spiritual beliefs into your politics, and you're bound to get burned, eventually.
posted by bardic at 3:41 AM on November 3, 2006


Crap.


Now that I have that out of the way, which is more hateful-telling people that God has no problem with homosexual behavior therefore letting them wind up in hell, or telling them the truth in hope they repent and turn to God, to find eternal life?

Am I an enemy because I tell you the truth?

Oh, and sadly, my grandma might just be in hell-but only the Saviour knows that for sure. Frankly I can only think of one deceased family member who I think made it to heaven. Obviously it hurts my heart a lot (Most of my extended family are not born again.)
posted by konolia at 4:24 AM on November 3, 2006


some of us couldn't be happy knowing that others were in eternal torment

and you're not telling us the truth, konolia, you're telling us the truth as you know and understand it

big difference there ...
posted by pyramid termite at 4:34 AM on November 3, 2006


Haggard, 50, initially denied the allegations, telling 9News Wednesday night that "I've never had a gay relationship with anybody, and I'm steady with my wife. I'm faithful to my wife."

"I'm steady with my wife?" Who the hell talks like that?

In my mind, "steady" conjures up images of a middle school romance: holding hands, smooching chastely, and maybe--maybe--cuddling through several layers of clothing. . .

Oh.
posted by EarBucket at 4:58 AM on November 3, 2006


I just listened the voice mail message linked above. Definitely sounds like him.

I like his pseudonym, too. Art. Am Really Ted.
posted by emelenjr at 5:01 AM on November 3, 2006


I take great pleasure in watching the downfall of another hypocrite fundie bastard. He could have been caught doing anythng at all illegal and/or "immoral" by his church's standards, but he actually appears to have been caught a) breaking the law; b) cheating on his wife; and c) doing the one thing his church declares is the root of all evil.

How can you not laugh at such hubris and hypocrisy? What is the proper reaction? Oh, let's wait for the evidence, because his resigning is just a "process" that got triggered? Bull. Shit. These guys are masters of realpolitik, and absolute political cynics. If there was no fire to go with the smoke, there is NO WAY he would have stepped down both from the NAE and his church position within one day like this, 5 days before a major national election in which this is bound to hurt his friends in the GOP, on hom he relies for succor (ha ha).

So here's a great big hardy hardy har and a round for all my friends. Let's drink to this man's fall from grace he never earned.

F**k you, Haggard. And all your bigoted, close-minded, "Christian" followers who believe your gospel of hate. Hoist, indeed, by your own petard, and you probably get off on it.
posted by fourcheesemac at 5:03 AM on November 3, 2006


Hey Konolia, it's not the "truth" unless you can prove it.

So go ahead. Prove your "hell" exists and all the sodomites are going there.

You're a disgrace to metafilter, and a bigot.
posted by fourcheesemac at 5:08 AM on November 3, 2006


Oh, and we've already reaped the political benefit for the dems: the utter bullshit "Kerry insulted the troops" story is gone, gone, gone. And the GOP loses control of at least two more news cycles with 4 days left. Yeehaw.
posted by fourcheesemac at 5:10 AM on November 3, 2006


"Hell" is other people and I guess I'm there already.
posted by exlotuseater at 5:10 AM on November 3, 2006


First Peter 4:17-18

For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God;and if it begins with us,what will the outcome be for those that do not obey the gospel of God? And if it is hard for the righteous to be saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?
posted by konolia at 5:14 AM on November 3, 2006


Am I an enemy because I tell you the truth?

You have no fucking clue what the truth is. You can't even articulate you idiotic ideas of what it might be and regress to statements like "Sin is what God says it is. Period." in response to even the slightest criticism. You can't put two sentences together without some sort of inconsistency or contradiction. Only lord knows whether you grandma is in hell, but YOU think the other family member made it to heaven!
posted by c13 at 5:22 AM on November 3, 2006


Anyone see this?

Late Thursday, The Associated Press reported that the acting senior pastor at New Life, Ross Parsley, told KKTV-TV of Colorado Springs that Haggard admitted some of the accusations were true, but Parsley didn't elaborate.
Yeah, just a slander. Sure.
posted by fourcheesemac at 5:24 AM on November 3, 2006


Apocryphal: I read this in my own notebook.

For judgment is in the eye of the beholder; which of us does not judge? All of us have masked the face of God with our masks, put our stained words in His mouth. The Righteous is he who rejects the falsity of perception; he who walks in Truth is not without but within, not in a book, but dwells in the spring of the heart.
posted by exlotuseater at 5:37 AM on November 3, 2006


Time to whip out my old favourites:

Matthew 7:1-5 --
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

And, always:

Matthew 5:5 --
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 5:37 AM on November 3, 2006


^ see? just as valid as any nonsense with a classy title like "Letter to blahdeblah"
posted by exlotuseater at 5:38 AM on November 3, 2006


First Peter

Really?
posted by SteveInMaine at 5:40 AM on November 3, 2006


This preacher is a f*cking scumbag.

Following in the footsteps of MANY other people just like him who can't stand the fact that they were BORN GAY, and take to gay bashing to make themselves feel better.
posted by stevejensen at 5:47 AM on November 3, 2006


But, you know, sometimes comeuppance is deserved.

"Pride goes before destruction,
a haughty spirit before a fall.

Better to be lowly in spirit and among the oppressed
than to share plunder with the proud."


As for konolia, she knows all too well that it's debatable whether or not a group that eats shellfish and allows women to talk in church can non-hypocritically condemn homosexuality a sin. As for hell, I think that Jesus guy said long ago that the "true believers" are pretty much going to be nastily surprised on Judgement Day:

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Worshipping Supply Side Jesus has allowed the evangelical right to embrace the worst aspects of capitalism and life in middle-class comfort, but I don't think it'll be Supply Side Jesus sitting in that judgement chair.

To put it another way, I'll happily put up with evangelical anti-gay bigotry as soon as they start taking the majority of the Bible they claim guides thier lives seriously. Feed the poor. Care for the sick. Welcome the immigrant. Judge not lest you be judged. Turn the other cheek, even in international politics. Act like Jesus, maybe even just a little, maybe just 1%, and maybe then what you say about what God does and does approve of will carry some weight with me.
posted by eustacescrubb at 5:47 AM on November 3, 2006 [14 favorites has favorites]


Ross Parsley Interview.
posted by ibmcginty at 5:54 AM on November 3, 2006


I know I'm arriving late to the party, and I don't have the patience to go through the last thousand comments to see if anyone else has posted this -- but MSNBC has just reported that the good preacher has ADMITTED to certain, ahem, INDISCRETIONS. Now put that in your man-pipe and smoke it.
posted by Toecutter at 5:54 AM on November 3, 2006


Oh God, Supply Side Jesus ! Thanks eustace !
posted by elpapacito at 5:57 AM on November 3, 2006


I don't see it on the site, Toecutter- link to prove it.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 5:58 AM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


Now that I have that out of the way, which is more hateful-telling people that God has no problem with homosexual behavior therefore letting them wind up in hell

Not that one.

or telling them the truth in hope they repent and turn to God, to find eternal life?

That one gets closer, yeah.

Of course, the real problem isn't that evangelicals offer arguments to homosexuals. If it were just a matter of people bothering gays about how they're going to hell, that wouldn't be such a big deal.

The problem is that evangelicals try to use the power of the state to forbid homosexuals from making legal contracts with each other, and to forbid homosexuals from making legally binding medical decisions for their immediate families, and to keep homosexuals in poverty following the death of immediate family members by denying them inheritance rights. The problem is that evangelicals don't just not visit the sick and not feed the hungry in this context, they use the power of the state to forcibly prevent family members from ministering to the sick and feeding the hungry.

Which is more hateful? That's a tough one, cookie.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:08 AM on November 3, 2006


Huh. I was sure this was going to be nothing. First Foley, then this...
posted by smackfu at 3:52 PM PST


Keep looking down, eventually there will be flowers thrown at your feet.
posted by rough ashlar at 6:09 AM on November 3, 2006


A fair call out, Pink. No link sorry -- was during a news break on MSNBC's Imus radio show broadcast. But now (and again, no link, but what can I say) MSNBC has broadcast a snippet of the voice mail recording along with a speech analyst's opinion that it belongs to Haggard. This guy is toast.
posted by Toecutter at 6:10 AM on November 3, 2006


Well ... this is a cluster, if I ever saw one.

The schadenfreude in here is pathetic.
posted by Alt F4 at 6:19 AM on November 3, 2006


Now that I have that out of the way, which is more hateful-telling people that God has no problem with homosexual behavior therefore letting them wind up in hell, or telling them the truth in hope they repent and turn to God, to find eternal life?

Konolia, I think the part where you accused a lot of innocent, law-abiding people of being pedophiles was very hateful.

May your God offer mercy on your soul for such libelous, baseless comments.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:25 AM on November 3, 2006 [3 favorites has favorites]


Am I an enemy because I tell you the truth?

Don't flatter yourself. The only reason you're an "enemy" is because you want me to live as a second-class citizen in the country of my birth, and are working to make that happen. I don't give a fuck what you believe, konolia, even if I think the brand of Christianity you've chosen for yourself demonstrates a startlingly pinched and dessicated heart. But when you use your beliefs to deny me the basic civil rights you enjoy, then you're a fucking jerk who deserves no respect whatsoever.

Find another issue to tell the truth about, dear. You're done on this one, gaydar and all.
posted by mediareport at 6:26 AM on November 3, 2006 [4 favorites has favorites]


Oh yeah, this was on Focus on the Family Radio last night. They kinda implied it wasn't true.
posted by thirteenkiller at 6:26 AM on November 3, 2006


The schadenfreude in here is pathetic.

Oh, please. The children's table is in the kitchen, if you can't handle a group of adults talking cynically about sex, religion, lying and hypocrisy in U.S. politics.
posted by mediareport at 6:27 AM on November 3, 2006 [2 favorites has favorites]


Email sent to the New Life Church mailing list by the new pastor, Ross Parsley: here. Contains a press release and this line:
"Since that time, the board of overseers has met with Pastor Ted. It is important for you to know that he confessed to the overseers that some of the accusations against him are true. He has willingly and humbly submitted to the authority of the board of overseers, and will remain on administrative leave during the course of the investigation.

I'm betting he'll admit to the drug use, but not the adult penis funtime.
posted by PantsOfSCIENCE at 6:30 AM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


konolia writes "Am I an enemy because I tell you the truth?"

We take offense to your words because they are hateful. And the creepiest thing is that I am willing to accept that you are reproducing them here without malice, and even thinking that you're doing us good.

Even the Inquisitor back in the old days could feel good about torturing a man to death if the man confessed before dying. You see, if he truly confessed, his soul would go to heaven when he passed on (generally minutes after the confession). The Inquisitor never needed to reflect on the horrible, horrible tortures he was submitting his victim to, because it was all for the greater good, for the greater glory of God.

And so it is with you. You are so used to the hate that you do not see it as hate. You even see it as a good thing -- spreading the hate will lead to more souls being saved. I think you might want to have a look at Matthew 7:3 and ponder its meaning. And think of how your hateful attitude towards gays reflects on your understanding of John 15:12.
posted by clevershark at 6:33 AM on November 3, 2006 [4 favorites has favorites]


The schadenfreude in here is pathetic.

People like you started this Culture War. So don't whine when we bayonette the battlefield wounded.
posted by Toecutter at 6:33 AM on November 3, 2006 [5 favorites has favorites]


I think you might want to have a look at Matthew 7:3 and ponder its meaning.

*cough cough*
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 6:42 AM on November 3, 2006


So don't whine when we bayonette the battlefield wounded

Who's bayonetting? We're simply watching with satisfaction when yet another anti-gay crusader gets revealed as a closet case who projects his own lack of courage and spirit onto every other gay person. Most of us know by now that's how many of the worst anti-gay crusaders get created, but it's still useful for the few who don't when that truth is revealed yet again.

We're not bayonetting, we're using the stupidity of one culture warrior to help others out of the war.
posted by mediareport at 6:49 AM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


Konolia: I'll bet you're not at all a bad person, and you probably do mean well. But as usual here on the blue, you come across as a bigot, a simpleton, and a coward. You make astoundingly ignorant proclamations (e.g. gay = pedophile) and then you disappear... Or else you call up your facile, deux ex machina ("Because God says so") to bail you out and sum it all up for us sinners (--a wide lot, including even your grandma); a move that makes it embarrassingly clear how in over your head you are.
posted by applemeat at 6:54 AM on November 3, 2006


bardic: If Michael Moore got caught being pegged by Ann Coulter, it would be mefi's job, nay, it's duty to comment upon it.

Thanks, bardic!!! That one made my day. Ya know, I am not sure who should be more shamed in that arrangement. Or more proud. Dang man, what is it with Coulter? She has that really really evil bad girl appeal somehow. It ain't right. It bothers me.
posted by Bovine Love at 7:05 AM on November 3, 2006


Bovine Love writes "Dang man, what is it with Coulter? She has that really really evil bad girl appeal somehow. It ain't right. It bothers me."

She makes voter fraud seem like teh sexay!
posted by clevershark at 7:11 AM on November 3, 2006


"If you had to accept Christ to stop your drinking, drugging, gambling, wife-beating, whatever, then you will always be morally and spiritually inferior to those of us who managed never to have those problems in the first place, or quit on our on resolve. Being born again doesn't erase your past, and it sure as hell doen't make you holier than me.

It makes you weak, and pathetic."


That's a really, really snotty-sounding comment pastabagel.

Reminds me of the pose/prose of the appalling James "Million Little Pieces" Frey.
posted by Jody Tresidder at 7:13 AM on November 3, 2006


What mediareport said - "yet another anti-gay cursader".

Think about this for a second - the problem here is not that these guys are being gay and hypocritical (okay, that is a problem, but not the BIG problem), the problem is that they are in the public eye, they know people are watching and they do it anyway.

How colossally arrogant is it to think that you can be a congressman and hit on underage pages and not think you are going to get busted? How arrogant is it to be the head of the organization that has made ant-gay preaching a foundational principle and then go hire a male prostitute on a monthly basiss and not expect to get caught?

It's addict mentality. They know they shouldn't do it, but they can't stop themselves, like the drunk who can't say no to the next drink. Weak, pathetic losers, just like their congregations - soft, comfy, middle-class weakness. Unable to sacrifice, unable to deny themselves even when it's in their best interest, unable to resist their appetites.

That's why you evangelicals need such a literal rules-based religion, because you're too weak willed to do it youselves. But don't project that onto the rest of the country. I can control my appetites, most people can. We can control our drinking, our eating, etc.

We can control our tempers and our feelings, and we don't need fairy stories of gods and demons and prophets and wizards and unicorns and whatever the hell else is in the Bible or Book of Mormon or the Urantia book or Battlefield Earth. We don't need magic when we have self control and compassion.

That where American chruches went wrong - you took love thy neighbor to mean that you should keep blacks and gays and jews and catholics out of your neighborhoods. Love thy neighbor is the only part of the Bible that any christian should take to heart, because that is the point that jesus hammered home time after time.

Love everyone, your enemy, the weak, the diseased, the whores, everybody. Love them because you are no better. That's the NT for you. Not rules about who can touch a penis or under what conditions women are allow3ed to have sex. If you think the Bible is a guide to daily living, I'm sorry, you are in all scientific sense of the word, a moron. Your IQ is low. You missed the point.

The point of the Iliad is the danger of hubris, it's pride goeth before the fall. It's not about sneaky greeks or cool battles between gods and mortals. Frankenstein is not about a mad scientists, it's about how man can be a monster when faced with fear. Learn how to read, and then read between the lines. Even when the Bible mentions sex literally it's not really about sex.

The new testament is in absolutely no way about sex. Not straight sex, not gay sex, not any kind of sex. If you are so obssesed with sex that you turn a great work of moral philosophy into fuck manual, then you don't need a priest, you need a therapist. You need a university faculty analyzing you around the clock.

In summary, new testament not about sex.
posted by Pastabagel at 7:16 AM on November 3, 2006 [49 favorites has favorites]


Pastabagel for mayor.
posted by glenwood at 7:19 AM on November 3, 2006


If you are so obssesed with sex that you turn a great work of moral philosophy into fuck manual, then you don't need a priest, you need a therapist.

BRAVO.
posted by applemeat at 7:19 AM on November 3, 2006


you will always be morally and spiritually inferior to those of us who managed never to have those problems in the first place, or quit on our on resolve

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:3)
posted by pyramid termite at 7:25 AM on November 3, 2006


Most of us here believe that when a politician or preacher, with moral and political power respectively (although the line between the two has become dangerously blurred recently), and then gets caught having man-fun in between trying to make it illegal/immoral to have man-fun, they get what they deserve when they are caught in flagrante delictico with another same-sex human.

If Ted were my plumber or my professor or my doctor I wouldn't give a shit.

If I voted for a congressperson because she was against abortion and than she had an abortion, would I feel the same way? Probably.

And sorry for feeling schadenfreude. I'm only human, and I'm not trying to get elected on an anti-schadefreude platform.
posted by kozad at 7:27 AM on November 3, 2006


so who whacked the first thread - and did they apologize to the whackee? that was f'd. as is the whole evangelical movement. sick shit - ministers riding high in their tax free SUVs. this couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch. think haggered is out purchasing some bubble wrap?
posted by specialk420 at 7:28 AM on November 3, 2006


To put it another way, I'll happily put up with evangelical anti-gay bigotry as soon as they start taking the majority of the Bible they claim guides thier lives seriously. Feed the poor. Care for the sick. Welcome the immigrant. Judge not lest you be judged. Turn the other cheek, even in international politics. Act like Jesus, maybe even just a little, maybe just 1%, and maybe then what you say about what God does and does approve of will carry some weight with me.

As a Christian, so would I.

And, you know? There's a shift coming, something I was trying to say waaaaaaaay up the thread. The current Father, Son, and Grand Old Party flavor of Christianity is starting to collapse. Those in the church who have tied their fortunes to the Republican bandwagon are trying desperately to cut the rope before the party goes off the cliff.

New flavors of Christianity are coming out, with new leaders and new emphases.

The mainline church is shrinking, thanks to a graying membership and a mealymouthed evangelism that's failed to attract new blood (save some pockets within the Presbyterian and Lutheran churches).

Non-denominational "megachurches" are proving themselves to be unsustainable, because too often they form around one person, like a Ted Haggard, and turn into personality cults. Then, when something happens to the personality -- death, heresy, teh gay sex while high on meth -- members abandon the expensive buildings and trappings in droves, leaving unpaid bills and unused shopping mall type churches.

There's a change coming, though. And like I said up thread, two strains are coming into focus -- the emerging church and the neo-reformed movement. Both have greater focus on the poor and less emphasis on politics to fix perceived problems. Both are evangelical. Both are composed of Gen X pastors and Gen Y members. And both are about to start pushing the Dobsons and Falwells and Spongs into the background.

And I've seen it. I've seen these changes in a number of places. And it's not going to be what eustacescrubb wants exactly, but it's a start. At least it relies on Biblical living. At least it returns one of the central concerns of the Bible -- the poor -- to being a concern instead of being illegal immigrant welfare mothers.

And it won't be the castrated faith that so many on this thread want.

But things are changing. Everyone just doesn't know it yet. And in 5, 10, 15 years, people will be complaining about different parts of Christianity. And Fred Phelps, that guy who is as Christian as Richard Dawkins. Because evil shitheads like him never die.

Aside to koinolia: Yeah, you might want to rethink your strategy. Remember in Acts where Paul gets stoned by the angry mob? That's MetaFilter every thread, every day, regardless of topic. Unless you want a few hundred welts on that pretty little head of yours, I'd be backing away about 5 hours ago.
posted by dw at 7:30 AM on November 3, 2006


"Jesus didn’t speak at all about homosexuality. There are about 12 verses in the Bible that touch on that question. Most of them are very contextual. There are thousands of verses on poverty. I don’t hear a lot of that conversation."

-- Jim Wallis, (liberal Evangelical preacher)

It's a bit disingenuous to tar an entire movement with the same brush--evangelical Christianity has more than one view in it.

(And you know? You can be Christian and homosexual. It's not either/or.)
posted by Upton O'Good at 7:32 AM on November 3, 2006


Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:3)
posted by pyramid termite at 10:25 AM EST on November 3


Exactly. People who think that just because they quit their addiction they now have Christ in their heart and are holier than thou, and aren't inheriting anything in whatever afterlife there is.
posted by Pastabagel at 7:34 AM on November 3, 2006


I am shocked, alarmed, dismayed and outraged (in add'n to being severely late to this thread)! How dare a pastor -- a man of God, a spirtual leader to thousands -- be so human as to have sexual needs and respond to those needs? Would prefer to see him in a healthy, stable homo relnship to reading that he's paying for sex, though -- the needed intimacy's probably just not there.

Yeah, I've wondered about threads getting whacked. How dare the Powers that Be at MeFi be so human? Hmmm....
posted by pax digita at 7:35 AM on November 3, 2006


"That's why you evangelicals need such a literal rules-based religion, because you're too weak willed to do it youselves. But don't project that onto the rest of the country. I can control my appetites, most people can. We can control our drinking, our eating, etc. We can control our tempers and our feelings, and we don't need fairy stories of gods and demons and prophets and wizards and unicorns and whatever the hell else is in the Bible or Book of Mormon or the Urantia book or Battlefield Earth. We don't need magic when we have self control and compassion...."

Pastabagel:

You sound as though you're about to implode with righteous fury lecturing about self-control and compassion!

Jeepers, listen to some nice Yo Yo Ma or something!
posted by Jody Tresidder at 7:38 AM on November 3, 2006


People like you started this Culture War.

Wha? What are "people like me"? I don't know Ted Haggard. I've never been to his church. I'm not Republican. My sister's a lesbian. My personal position is that the state should recognize same-sex unions. So it's pretty presumptuous to just lash out at me with a "people like you."

But here's the irony, and here's what I'm trying to say: This thread is full of people crying out that this guy shouldn't judge people for their actions (that is, his anti-homosexual position), while they judge him for his actions (that is, his homosexual position {as it were}). "No, no," you say. "We're judging him for his hypocrisy." Sure. Yeah. You are. I know that. But the point is that you're taking gleeful pleasure in this guy's downfall, while you condemn him for his own lack of grace (in the Christian, "forgiven" sense of the word) towards homosexuals.

It's remarkably hypocritical to be un-grace-ful while condemning someone else for his un-grace-ful-ness. That's all I'm saying.

On preview: That where American chruches went wrong - you took love thy neighbor to mean that you should keep blacks and gays and jews and catholics out of your neighborhoods. Love thy neighbor is the only part of the Bible that any christian should take to heart, because that is the point that jesus hammered home time after time.
That's spot-on.
posted by Alt F4 at 7:43 AM on November 3, 2006


someone sent me his confession.
posted by mathowie at 7:46 AM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


But things are changing. Everyone just doesn't know it yet. And in 5, 10, 15 years, people will be complaining about different parts of Christianity. And Fred Phelps, that guy who is as Christian as Richard Dawkins. Because evil shitheads like him never die.

posted by dw at 10:30 AM EST on November 3


I'm sure you're right in characterizing the trend, but I don't see the new crop getting the same political clout as the old one, because preaching on poverty and sacrifice is not something the soft middle class wants to hear. They want to hear that they are good and someone else is bad without having to work to achieve that goodness. That's why the gay thing resonates so much.

"Hey, I'm straight, I'm already better than all these gay people and I didn't have to do anything. I guess I really am blessed!"

The evangelical movement spread so successfully because it was a very nice way to replace some very ugly undercurrents in american society - all the anti-catholic bigotry, the humiliation of the south and a crushed white pride, the humiliation of vietnam and the counterculture movement, the rapid economic success of immigrants, the the shifting of mainstream media to a more confrontational, pluralistic art form from a conformist, corporate echo chamber (though it is swinging back that way), all these things made middle class whites feel disenfranchised. Add to that all the drinking, etc.

The evangelical movement stepped in to the void and lifted their spirits. It had nothing to do with helping the poor, because by and large the membership doesn't care about the poor.

To them the poor are the welfare queens and the lazy looking for handouts, and the rich are the artsy educated elites that they don't understand and can't engage intellectually. Evangelicism is "what about me?" religion.

So it's great that some people want to take their religion back. Good for them, but if they expect to have congregations even a tenth as large as this guy's, they are in for a rude awakening.
posted by Pastabagel at 7:47 AM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


But the point is that you're taking gleeful pleasure in this guy's downfall, while you condemn him for his own lack of grace (in the Christian, "forgiven" sense of the word) towards homosexuals.

Come on, Alt F4, this isn't that hard.

This is a guy who is guilty not merely of the sin of lack of grace, but of USING HIS LEADERSHIP OF A 30-MILLION MEMBER ORGANIZATION TO STIGMATIZE GAY PEOPLE AND TO ENSHRINE THAT PREJUDICE INTO LAW.

Also, he talked to the president or his advisers every week.

If this were some guy in the next cubicle, then any schadenfreude would be bizarre. But it's not.
posted by ibmcginty at 7:47 AM on November 3, 2006


Now that I have that out of the way, which is more hateful-telling people that God has no problem with homosexual behavior therefore letting them wind up in hell, or telling them the truth in hope they repent and turn to God, to find eternal life?

This of course presupposes the existence of God. But even if you take that as given--what if he's cooler than you think, konolia? What if this actually isn't a mandate from heaven, but something Christians have picked up because it was a convenient "sin" to cluck their tongues over?

What you ask is nothing less than for gay people to sacrifice any chance at happiness in their natural lives on the off chance that their afterlife depends on it. Given that such a sacrifice is naturally unnecessary for you, yes, that's hateful.

Oh, and sadly, my grandma might just be in hell-but only the Saviour knows that for sure. Frankly I can only think of one deceased family member who I think made it to heaven. Obviously it hurts my heart a lot (Most of my extended family are not born again.)

That's the eeriest thing about fundamentalists. Why do you want to spend eternity without your family? (I mean, it might sound tempting around Thanksgiving, but it would probably get old fast.) Eternal separation from your loved ones is eternal punishment. "It hurts" is a bit of an understatement, don't you think?
posted by Epenthesis at 7:49 AM on November 3, 2006


Also, it's worth watching the interview with Haggard's temporary replacement. Set gaydars on "suspension of disbelief."
posted by ibmcginty at 7:51 AM on November 3, 2006


I strongly disagree with you there, Alt F4. People here seem to me to be judging Haggard on his hypocrisy. When has a metafilter thread about another run-of-the-mill, Republican homophobe had this many posts?

Uh..Congratulations on the lesbian sister. (Does that innoculate you from homophobia?.. I'm not sure.)
posted by applemeat at 7:52 AM on November 3, 2006


Hey Konolia, it's not the "truth" unless you can prove it.
So go ahead. Prove your "hell" exists and all the sodomites are going there.
You're a disgrace to metafilter, and a bigot.
posted by fourcheesemac


A disgrace to metafilter??? Because she believes differently than the majority of us?

I believe that konolia is a kind, well-meaning member of metafilter. She is not a troll. She is not a hypocrite. She is, of course, IMHO wrong on this subject but that does not make her the enemy. Save your self-righteous indignation for those who deserve it.

Let he who is not in denial about something cast the first stone.
posted by leftcoastbob at 7:53 AM on November 3, 2006


That's a really, really snotty-sounding comment pastabagel.

You sound as though you're about to implode with righteous fury lecturing about self-control and compassion!

How about reading his posts instead of reading into them?
posted by MegoSteve at 7:53 AM on November 3, 2006


Sin is what God says it is. Period.

Konolia, I love ya, but sometimes you trouble me. The Bible is an often wise and beautiful book that says a lot of things. I'm not her to disrespect your faith, but as your friend I urge you to read this book.

There are people who are simply homophobes, but who use religion as pseudo-justification. Then there are generally decent people who tolerate homophobia because some interpretations of their faith tell them to. I'd wager you're in the latter camp. And the book I linked shows that there's other ways of interpreting a lot of things.
posted by jonmc at 7:55 AM on November 3, 2006


ibmcginty - that's fair.
posted by Alt F4 at 7:57 AM on November 3, 2006


I also think it's very sad that some people here choose to take out their legitamite gripes with other Christians on konolia. Dirty pool and scapegoating. I disagree with her on a lot and I'm sure she disapproves of many things I do, but she's never been anything other than a lady about it.
posted by jonmc at 7:57 AM on November 3, 2006


and FWIW, konolia, I have to agree that the equation of homosexuality and pedophilia is offensive and you probably knew it would hurt and anger many of us, so I think an apology is owed for that.
posted by jonmc at 7:59 AM on November 3, 2006


me: "We're judging him for his hypocrisy." ... I know that.

applemeat: I strongly disagree with you there, Alt F4. People here seem to me to be judging Haggard on his hypocrisy.

Got it.
posted by Alt F4 at 8:02 AM on November 3, 2006


ibmcginty, thanks for the link to the interview with the acting senior pastor.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:03 AM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


It's remarkably hypocritical to be un-grace-ful while condemning someone else for his un-grace-ful-ness.

What are you talking about? We're condemning him for specific anti-gay remarks he made while manwhoring with a rentboy over the past three years. It has nothing to do with "his un-grace-ful-ness," whatever the fuck that is, despite your apparent need to equate us with him.
posted by mediareport at 8:04 AM on November 3, 2006


Look Alt F4 -- I'm glad you're not a dick. But you are the one throwing out words like "pathetic," "presumptuous," and "hypocritical," which, were I to apply the same exquisitely calibrated civility meter you have used on us, would certainly qualify as ungraceful.

This isn't difficult. Someone who has contributed to the growing darkness in this country has been exposed as a fraud. And some of us are happy about it.
posted by Toecutter at 8:07 AM on November 3, 2006


this guy, from everything I know, has never been an asshole.
posted by koeselitz at 5:20 PM PST on November 2


Crusading to ensure that homosexuals do not have the same rights as heterosexuals is an asshole move. Doing that while simultaneously paying for homosexual sex makes you a mega-asshole.

I'd wager that you don't know too many evangelicals, and that you only know them from what you see on TV and the Internet. Let me be the first to tell you, you usually have to talk to people before you can understand their culture.
posted by koeselitz at 5:31 PM PST on November 2


I used to work with a progressive evangelical Christian. He was nice and kind and a serious leftist. Then he ripped me off and may have committed fraud in his departure.

Now I work with a hard-right evangelical Christian. He is brusque and rude, and gets mad at people for daring to speak Spanish. He will probably rip me off, judging by what I've seen so far.

Down the street from me is an evangelical megachurch. They wouldn't hire me, but they asked for my help for their Fall Festival, and wanted my support so they could get a height exemption on their new building.

Pray tell: at what point do I stop turning the other cheek and rightfully conclude that the vast majority of evangelicals are dishonest and self-serving?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:09 AM on November 3, 2006


Jonmc, Konolia may indeed be a lady, and yes, she's much more gentle than Fred Phelps and his ilk, but why coddle anyone just because they could be worse? Why should decent manners insulate anyone from being called out on their stark ignorance?
posted by applemeat at 8:09 AM on November 3, 2006


Thanks, Alt F4, and thanks for being open to being persuaded rather than put off by my tone.
posted by ibmcginty at 8:10 AM on November 3, 2006


As in the Foley case (et al), I wonder if others will start coming forward who will claim assignations involving sexual and/or drug use with "Art" (BTW -- Arthur is Haggard's middle name).
posted by ericb at 8:13 AM on November 3, 2006


An apology from Konolia would be appropriate, jonmc. But I really don't expect one. It makes it so much easier to hate homosexuals when you can illogically connect them to vile behaviors like child molestation.

Every physical manifestation of love between same sex individuals is also manifested between opposite sex individuals. So it's kind of hard to focus on things like oral sex or anal sex. But pedophilia? Now there's something they can latch onto!
posted by NationalKato at 8:13 AM on November 3, 2006


Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:3)
posted by pyramid termite at 10:25 AM EST on November 3


Also, I wasn't suggeting that people who are addicted are weak. The issue is how you get through it. Addiciton is a test. I hope that was clear. People who are addicted deserve compassion and help - they shouldn't have to deal with people trying to convert them to a religion just to get that help.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:15 AM on November 3, 2006


Why should decent manners insulate anyone from being called out on their stark ignorance?

It dosen't and if you read my comments, I do explicitly condemn what she said. But I also, from previous interactions, believe she's a decent, well-meaning person who just might listen to some of what we have to say if it's said the right way, so I try. (and sometimes, watching a good person believe bad things can be very ...disheartening and frustrating). And to give her her due, she's explicitly said that people who harass and discriminate against homosexuals are being wrong and sinful as well, so I think it's unfair to equate her with Phelps.

Plus, one thing I really dislike about the right is the gleeful way in which the pounce on their 'enemies' like a pack of jackals. I'd rather we weren't like them.
posted by jonmc at 8:16 AM on November 3, 2006


It makes it so much easier to hate homosexuals

she dosen't hate queerfolk, she's believes a lot of untrue things about them, and there is a difference. You could say the same about most of us with some group of people or another. So as that book says, let he who is without sin cast the first stone, judge not lest ye be judged, etc.

When confronted with something we disagree strongly with, we can do one of two things, get all witchburny and lynchmobby (and I'll cop to having done that a time or two myself) oir we can try to engage. konolia keeps coming back to a place where she knows she's outnumbered and that many are explicitly hostiulr to her, so that tells me that maybe she wants to be engaged.
posted by jonmc at 8:20 AM on November 3, 2006


Ted Haggard is a hatemonger, and he deserves every tiny bit of scorn we can muster and more.

I love it when a children's sunday school lesson plays itself out on the national stage.

Pray tell: at what point do I stop turning the other cheek and rightfully conclude that the vast majority of evangelicals are dishonest and self-serving?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:09 AM CST on November 3


Today.
posted by Ynoxas at 8:21 AM on November 3, 2006


As an aside - check out this sign for the 'Yes on 43' anti-gay marriage amendment that Haggard supports.

Fox News link, click on the lower-right photo


Notice the bizarre 'subliminal' use of the word 'period' - in RED;as is the FEMALE figure.
posted by jettloe at 8:23 AM on November 3, 2006


I have to agree that the equation of homosexuality and pedophilia is offensive and you probably knew it would hurt and anger many of us, so I think an apology is owed for that.

It totally is. That's why people got angry here--don't insult us while trying to defend someone's trangressions--it makes you (and your faith) look really really bad.
posted by amberglow at 8:24 AM on November 3, 2006


Fastest growing "faith group" in America = Mormons

Fastest growing, on a percentage basis - Wicca

And be nice to konalia.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:25 AM on November 3, 2006


jonmc: I grok what you're saying, but damn man, she's been around a while. At what point do you stop responding to her "queers are going to hell! HELL! HEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLL!" with "oh, that's just konolia, being her little conservative self".

At some point, you have to hold someone responsible for the views they hold.

I too think she's basically a good person trapped in a hateful religion. But she's also a grown adult, well past the age of responsibility, and it is her own responsibility to look past the fairy tales and realize what her religion is wanting to impose upon the real world.
posted by Ynoxas at 8:28 AM on November 3, 2006


she dosen't hate queerfolk, she's believes a lot of untrue things about them

...and votes to keep them second-class citizens in a democracy. But it's not "hate," nosiree; it's "decent" and "well-meaning" to equate gay and lesbian citizens with pedophiles Give me a fucking break, jonmc. I've met plenty of superficially genteel fundamentalists but when push comes to shove, the mean-spiritedness underlying their professed beliefs comes shining through, and we've definitely seen that from konolia here, however much she likes to paint herself in showers of sunshine and rainbows.
posted by mediareport at 8:30 AM on November 3, 2006 [2 favorites has favorites]


have to agree that the equation of homosexuality and pedophilia is offensive and you probably knew it would hurt and anger many of us, so I think an apology is owed for that.


I disagree. I don't think she honestly thought people here might be gay, and she's probably heard pedophilia and homosexuality compared by some person or another, and is repeating it. Frankly, in a lot of same sex pedophile stories, the distinction is not really made clear that the crime is the sex with a minor, not homosexuality.

In the Catholic Church pedophile scandals, and in evangelical criticism of the Church, the sin they had to atone for was being gay, not being pedophiles.

So I'm willing to cut some slack.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:30 AM on November 3, 2006


Ynoxas, I'm merely saying we can hold her responsible without being jerks about it is all.
posted by jonmc at 8:30 AM on November 3, 2006


I don't think she honestly thought people here might be gay,

pastabagel, I know konolia from here and several other web forums, where she's heard me and others describe all kinds of stuff she probably disapproves of, including homosexuality. I think it's safe to say that she's aware that there's a substantial population of queerfolk around.
posted by jonmc at 8:32 AM on November 3, 2006


What, Pastabagel? konolia's been around a long time. She knows that plenty of mefites are gay, and she knows who many of them are, as well.
posted by gaspode at 8:32 AM on November 3, 2006


Pastabagel: as soon as the Mormons re-institute polygamy and remove the "special underwear" requirement, I'm right there. Because if I have 6 wives, I don't need nothing gettin' in my way, if you know what I'm sayin'.

"And then Jesus presented himself to the Costa Ricans, and then he was tired from revealing himself all over the world, so he took a little vacation in Jamaica, where he gave a half-assed story of his coming to the Rastafarians". Oh, those Mormons.

jonmc: understood.
posted by Ynoxas at 8:33 AM on November 3, 2006


At some point, you have to hold someone responsible for the views they hold.

I too think she's basically a good person trapped in a hateful religion. But she's also a grown adult, well past the age of responsibility, and it is her own responsibility to look past the fairy tales and realize what her religion is wanting to impose upon the real world.
posted by Ynoxas at 11:28 AM EST on November 3


That gets to the narcissism of it. I really don't think she realizes that gay issues actually affect real life human beings who have their own lives and feelings. She (not to single her out, the whole religion does) does not see everyone as separate individuals, she sees everything as an extension of her self and only as a projection on her beliefs and life.

That's the attack. Ask her to imagine that she or a loved one is gay, and then imagine that person's life. But saying that she insulted you is meaningless. She doesn't see you as a seperate individual that has feelings that can be insulted.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:35 AM on November 3, 2006


"And then Jesus presented himself to the Costa Ricans, and then he was tired from revealing himself all over the world, so he took a little vacation in Jamaica, where he gave a half-assed story of his coming to the Rastafarians".

Religions of the world
posted by jonmc at 8:35 AM on November 3, 2006


pastabagel, I get what you're trying to say but you are making an awful lot of assumptions about konolia that I can tell you are untrue, which undermines your legitamite point.
posted by jonmc at 8:36 AM on November 3, 2006


I think it's safe to say that she's aware that there's a substantial population of queerfolk around.
posted by jonmc at 11:32 AM EST on November 3


Ok, I stand corrected.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:37 AM on November 3, 2006


konolia knows full well that we're gay -- but in previous discussions she hasn't compared us to criminals -- and if she did do that, we gave it to her then too. We don't hide, like Haggard or the many GOP closetcases--we speak and we respond and we have personal integrity.
posted by amberglow at 8:39 AM on November 3, 2006


I'm sure you're right in characterizing the trend, but I don't see the new crop getting the same political clout as the old one, because preaching on poverty and sacrifice is not something the soft middle class wants to hear. They want to hear that they are good and someone else is bad without having to work to achieve that goodness. That's why the gay thing resonates so much.

The problem is that it's not Biblical. Everyone is bad. Everyone sins. And faith in Christ doesn't make you better, only forgiven. (Yes, I know I'm ripping off a crap-ass bumper sticker, but hear me out.) And grace is a different animal from judgmentalness and schaudenfreude. It's actually really dangerous, because it says that crap like this is going to happen.

And I think, as the Dawkins-style "fundamentalist" atheism comes to the fore, you'll see the "soft middle class" abandon Christianity, just as they did in Germany and the UK during the 20th century. And that is actually a good thing, honestly. It means that the people who treat church as a Sunday morning Kiwanis Club meeting or a well-dressed version of a White Citizens Council will go find something else to dick around with.

The church as a political animal is an old phoenix. It's about to burn itself up, only to re-emerge in another generation again, only different. It happened before. Post-Scopes the evangelicals were silent until Billy Graham, the fundamentalists until the late 1960s.

The evangelical movement spread so successfully because it was a very nice way to replace some very ugly undercurrents in american society - all the anti-catholic bigotry, the humiliation of the south and a crushed white pride, the humiliation of vietnam and the counterculture movement, the rapid economic success of immigrants, the the shifting of mainstream media to a more confrontational, pluralistic art form from a conformist, corporate echo chamber (though it is swinging back that way), all these things made middle class whites feel disenfranchised.

You're conflating Republicans and Christians, especially when you start talking about Vietnam and the civil rights movement. The George Wallace "Segregation Forever" types started abandoning the Democratic party in the 1960s, and they eventually became the leadership of the Republican party. The evangelical movement really didn't start inserting themselves into politics until after Roe, and even then it took until the late 1970s before you actually started seeing the movement have influence.

And remember that the 1970s were the "Me Generation." Prop 13 came out of that era -- and all the tax crusading Reaganomics in its wake. Yes, the Christian Coalition joined in, but that wasn't really until the late 1980s.

And, honestly, would you consider Billy Graham to be on the same level as Falwell or Robertson? Graham is a classical Evangelical. Falwell is a neo-Fundamentalist. And I think you're conflating those two terms as well. They're not the same. Fundamentalists believe in Biblical inerrancy. Some Evangelicals believe in inerrancy, but most believe the Bible was "inspired" by God, that there are mistakes because humans wrote it, but as a whole it's a holy set of books. And there are other differences.

But the key thing to understand is that Fundamentalists start with the Five Fundamentals. Evangelicals as a whole don't ascribe to these because they don't reject higher biblical criticism.

For that matter, big-F Fundamentalism is a subset of Evangelical Christianity. It's a dominant strain right now, but it's not, in itself, Evangelical Christianity. (Little-f fundamentalism can be found in any belief system, of course.)

Evangelicism is "what about me?" religion.

No, American Christianity -- and American religion is. Look across at all the other religious movements that emerged post-1960s. It's all about self. It's all about what makes me look good, or better than someone else. The return of Gnosticism is less about "look how the church screwed up" and more about "look at the True Knowledge given me!" Ditto Celestine Prophecy. Or Da Vinci Code. And you see that in the New Age movement, or the Kabaalah. In fact, you even see it in this new Dawkinsite strain of atheism. We are perfect. It's everyone else who is delusional.

Americans are greedy and short-sighted, and despite being the most financially rich people in the history of humanity, they still want more. They still want what's coming to THEM.

But that's not what the Bible says. Any good evangelical or fundamentalist can tell you that. This American church, though, is soaking in the sins of avarice and greed and xenophobia. It has a hard time seeing and repenting this because it's so deeply enmeshed in this culture. And when it tries to force the culture into its mores, it usually discovers that its their sins that are preventing that from happening. So they force harder. Or get co-opted by politics. Or just be ham-handed about it. I mean, after all, they may be Christians, but they're Americans, too.

Did you know that the Rapture is a basically American theological concept? Think about it. In the rest of the world, Christians tend to be posttribulation or atribulation.

So it's great that some people want to take their religion back. Good for them, but if they expect to have congregations even a tenth as large as this guy's, they are in for a rude awakening.

You act like we don't know that. We do. Trust us, we do. Dobson and Falwell don't know it, but God will be calling them home soon enough. As for Haggard, well, there is sin, and there is forgiveness in God. Forgiveness from people, well, I'm sure he can hire the people who are trying to rehabilitate Tom Cruise's Q-score. He's probably got some money squirreled away somewhere.
posted by dw at 8:44 AM on November 3, 2006 [5 favorites has favorites]


Konolia keeps coming back to a place where she knows she's outnumbered and that many are explicitly hostiulr to her, so that tells me that maybe she wants to be engaged.

What part of "Sin is what God says it is. Period." suggests a willingness to be engaged, as opposed to a desire to proselytize?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:44 AM on November 3, 2006


armitage: that's one statement, taken out of context. Like I said, I've known her in the online sense, for roughly 5 years and she's never tried to save my soul.(or anyone else's in the various communities either, to my knowledge) and the Evangelicals are big on that, like the Catholics and Bingo. The very fact that she keeps showing tells me that on some level she wants to learn more. I sincerely hope she reads that book I linked.

Look, you've got beefs with the Christian Right. So do I. But I don't like making one user the scapegoat for all that. It seems mean, and too much like what the Fundies themselves do.
posted by jonmc at 8:50 AM on November 3, 2006


It seems mean, and too much like what the Fundies themselves do.

Calling homosexuality sinful, telling them that they'll burn in hell for it, decrying one sin (homosexuality) while engaging in another (gluttony), working to ensure homosexuals remain second-class citizens = totally super cool.

Saying that maybe all of the above maybe isn't totally super cool = mean.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:54 AM on November 3, 2006


Okay everyone, group hug. Come on. All the gays over here for a snuggle, I promise not to grope anyone. *snuggles all*
posted by Hildegarde at 8:58 AM on November 3, 2006


Calling homosexuality sinful, telling them that they'll burn in hell for it, decrying one sin (homosexuality) while engaging in another (gluttony), working to ensure homosexuals remain second-class citizens = totally super cool.

have fun playing with your strawman, optimus.
posted by jonmc at 9:04 AM on November 3, 2006


"Frankly I can only think of one deceased family member who I think made it to heaven."
Yeah, and I'm the one that's over the line? I'll say it again - evangelicals are bigoted pigs and they are beneath contempt.
They are a cancer on a decent, democratic society, and should be treated as such.
posted by 2sheets at 9:07 AM on November 3, 2006 [2 favorites has favorites]


konolia knows full well that we're gay -- but in previous discussions she hasn't compared us to criminals -- and if she did do that, we gave it to her then too. We don't hide, like Haggard or the many GOP closetcases--we speak and we respond and we have personal integrity.

People like that Haggard et al are closeted because they consider themselves superior, more intelligent than their audience, while they are only a lot better at deceptions.

In their view, being homosexual or heterosexual is completely irrelevant, all they need is a target, somebody that may seem curious, alien and therefore may be described as vicious, immoral, cause of all sin, people that can be blamed ; and when they are not blamed, they are seen as inferior, so that in comparison the ones who agree they are inferior feel superior.

What they offer is a feeling of superiority, plus a feeling of being "part of a good group" , plus a feeling of not being alone. On top of this, he says this is the will of a perfect, all seing, all knowing god.

The fact that you and other gay people here speak up and don't shut up isn't seen as a problem, on the contrary it is an opportunity to find fault and point finger at your errors, so that in the eyes of the "believer" the sinner proves by his own behavior he is wicked. Believers, by virtue of having blind faith, only look at evidence that confirm their ideas and vehemently deny any other evidence.

The problem itself can't be found only in Haggard, as another important part of the problem is WHY do people believe the insanity he routinely speaks ; what imho must be challenged is NOT exclusively (or primarily) Haggard the human being, with his faults, shortcomings, hypocrisy and double talking ;rather one should challenge the moral grandstander figure, the persona they act in religios or political or everyday stances.

Haggard in this scheme isn't the target , he is just a covenient poster boy ; one shouldn't confine the criticism ONLY to the person, as he would become an easy scapegoat, a poor miserable human like millions others.

What is viral is the message and the methods, the person "just gets infected" by virtue of his/her own implicit weakness. He will probably get away with "devil made me do, now I am born again ! Rejoice, sing, do anything but remove the memory of what I did ! It was the devil ! "
posted by elpapacito at 9:18 AM on November 3, 2006


have fun playing with your strawman, optimus.
posted by jonmc at 9:04 AM PST on November 3


It's only a strawman if it's not true. All evidence seems to indicate that everything I wrote was a fair assessment.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:18 AM on November 3, 2006


...evangelicals are bigoted pigs and they are beneath contempt.
They are a cancer on a decent, democratic society, and should be treated as such.
posted by 2sheets


"A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own."

Let's not start on "I know you are, but what am I" schoolyard name-calling, okay?
posted by leftcoastbob at 9:20 AM on November 3, 2006


They are a cancer on a decent, democratic society, and should be treated as such.

Clearly the Best Of The Web, if the web were run by same people that brought you the Rwandan genocide.
posted by dw at 9:21 AM on November 3, 2006


428 (29) posts.

Wow, just wait till you guys find out what Rumsfeld has been up to.
posted by ciderwoman at 9:22 AM on November 3, 2006


As to the note on how Konolia's proslytizing is uncalled for, or how she won't be with family in heaven—
Fundamentalist theology strikes me as a magical version of Hobbes' social covenant. Hobbes' argument about the need for a sovereign to usurp the natural rights of man is only compelling if you view violent death in the state of nature the worst thing possible. If that's your assumption, then it follows that anything done to prevent that is a worthwhile trade.
If you take the assumption that going to Hell is the worst thing possible, and by its definition is the worst thing possible, and a strong sovereign can give you laws to prevent it, then any sacrifice of rights made is acceptable.
So Konolia's acceptance that she probably won't go to heaven with her pets and family is understandable and rational if you believe in heaven and hell, and her desire to save as many people from the worst thing possible is understandable.
However, as one of them depraved nonbelievers, I find that it strains credulity to imagine that the fundamental assumption— the existence of heaven and hell— is true.
I don't mind gullability and superstition, broadly. I wore my Tigers cap all day every day of their playoffs after the loss to the Yankees, and was quite happy in telling myself that I was contributing to their success. But as a pure tactical matter, should Konolia still be reading, you have to understand that trotting out threats on the basis of a magic book is going to alienate a lot of people. If you really want to bring people to Christ, you live your life as compassionately and kindly as possible and let people come to Him through you. This "tough love" stuff is bullshit and counterproductive.
posted by klangklangston at 9:24 AM on November 3, 2006


All evidence seems to indicate that everything I wrote was a fair assessment.

yes, indeed, optimus, I think homophobia is swell. in my spare time, I host Fred Phelps Hoedowns and Pig Roasts. You don't like me, that's your prerogative, but don't go making shit up out of whole cloth just to perpetuate grudges.
posted by jonmc at 9:26 AM on November 3, 2006


peeping_Thomist: God allowed these things because of the hardness of our hearts. Polygamy strikes me as one of those things that, like slavery or divorce, makes sense at a certain stage of cultural development, but later on comes to be seen, rightly, as inferior to other, better ways of organizing things.

bardic: Interesting. God is fallible. That's rather un-Thomist of you to admit.

Huh? From the fact that cultures go through stages of development, and that what is permitted at one point comes later to be seen as inferior and prohibited, how does it follow that God is fallible?

mr_roboto: Well, you've pretty well argued Scripture into a corner in the course of your comments here. It's hard to buy it as an authority on anything at this point.

Because Scripture is not to be read the way fundamentalists read it (and the way everyone on mefi seems to think it is to be read), it therefore can't function as an authority on anything? How does that follow? Apparently you think that unless the (screwy) fundamentalist conception of the authority of Scripture is correct, Scripture has no authority?

mr_roboto: reason can be a little more slippery than you've been led to believe. I'll give you two axioms from which to start; argue against them if you care to: pain is bad, pleasure is good.

These "axioms" are formulated in such a clumsy way as to lack sufficient cognitive content to be worth arguing either for or against. Bad in what respect? Good in what way? Do reasonable people really stand around like cavemen and grunt "bad" and "good" at each other? Next I suppose you'll be telling me that pleasure is double-plus good while pain is double-plus ungood, and expecting me to take a stand either for or against these subtle "axioms".

mr_roboto: peeping_Thomist writes "When God allowed polygamy, or slavery, or divorce, it wasn't because he 'didn't have a problem with it,' but rather because the problem he had with it was the kind of problem that can't be addressed by ramming prohibitions down people's throats." This claim seems to deny God's omnipotence. Which is fine, if that's the kind of God you've got.

Sounds like you would agree with the people who claim that God not being powerful enough to square the circle denies God's omnipotence. That strikes me as a bizarre claim.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 9:29 AM on November 3, 2006


Pastabagel for mayor.

Pastabagel has definitely been touched by His Noodly Appendage.

He has my vote.
posted by bashos_frog at 9:29 AM on November 3, 2006


Ted Haggard allegedly wanted orgy with 18 year old guys.
posted by ericb at 9:37 AM on November 3, 2006


Curiouser and curiouser:

Haggard's accuser fails lie detector

Now, lie detector tests are notoriously unreliable (not that much better than gaydar, honestly) and as the article says, the guy's under a lot of stress. Also, I think Haggard's apparent confession has to carry more weight. Still odd.
posted by EarBucket at 9:41 AM on November 3, 2006


"The test administrator, John Kresnik, said Jones' score indicated "deceptions" in his answers. However, Kresnik said he doubted the accuracy of the test he administered because of the recent stress on Jones and his inability to eat or sleep, according to KHOW producer Greg Hollenback.

Kresnik suggested that Jones be re-tested early next week after he was rested."
posted by ericb at 9:43 AM on November 3, 2006


Asst. Pastor of his church: It is important for you to know that he confessed to the overseers that some of the accusations against him are true.

tons and tons of other stuff on him at that link too, including this: ...And that is why he believes spiritual war requires a virile, worldly counterpart. "I teach a strong ideology of the use of power," he says, "of military might, as a public service." He is for preemptive war, because he believes the Bible's exhortations against sin set for us a preemptive paradigm, and he is for ferocious war, because "the Bible's bloody. There's a lot about blood." ...

He's not seriously seen as a Bible scholar, is he?
posted by amberglow at 9:43 AM on November 3, 2006


428 (29) posts.

Wow, just wait till you guys find out what Rumsfeld has been up to.
posted by ciderwoman at 12:22 PM EST on November 3


You have the mother of all MeFi religion threads. A big steaming pile into which to dump all your hatred for religion, whether germane to the topic or not, and on top of that dear sweet Konolia said homosexuality is wrong. Someone even tried to bring SUVs into it but that went nowhere. Maybe Jess was right all along.
posted by caddis at 9:43 AM on November 3, 2006


Nonetheless, the jury is still out on what are the facts regarding Harggard and the current allegations.
posted by ericb at 9:44 AM on November 3, 2006


Curiouser and curiouser:

If nothing else, it finally gave the Drudge Report a story to run.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:45 AM on November 3, 2006


It's addict mentality... Weak, pathetic losers...

your addiction to hubris and arrogance is simply stunning.
posted by quonsar at 9:46 AM on November 3, 2006


yes, indeed, optimus, I think homophobia is swell. in my spare time, I host Fred Phelps Hoedowns and Pig Roasts. You don't like me, that's your prerogative, but don't go making shit up out of whole cloth just to perpetuate grudges.
posted by jonmc at 9:26 AM PST on November 3


I wasn't talking about you, Mr. Senstive.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:47 AM on November 3, 2006


*group begins splitting hairs with a bevy of finely honed axes.
posted by caddis at 9:50 AM on November 3, 2006



In one scene in the film, Haggard takes a boy, 12, who wants to be a preacher, aside and tells him to "use the cute kid thing until you're 30 and by then you'll have content."


rofl
posted by amberglow at 9:52 AM on November 3, 2006


you were quoting my comment, Captain Obvious.
posted by jonmc at 9:53 AM on November 3, 2006


Well, hold on. If God changed his mind about polygamy, because polygamy was the way of an older society and it was just too complicated to make a fuss about it at the time, maybe the same is true for homophobia.
posted by Hildegarde at 10:02 AM on November 3, 2006


...Haggard's temporary replacement. Set gaydars on "suspension of disbelief."

I think my gaydar is broken. It went from flashing red to solid pink. How do I reset it? There was no manual in the box.
posted by well_balanced at 10:08 AM on November 3, 2006


Jeff Sharlet was the author of the Harper's article about Haggard and has reported on him often.

"In Sharlet's current post, he appears to find Jones (the escort) credible and thinks his only axe to grind is anger at Haggard's duplicity.
'I just talked to Jones on the phone. He's not vindictive, nor particularly political; he's voted for Republicans and Democrats. He struggled with his decision, out of compassion for a man in the closet. He was motivated, he said, simply by being a gay man who's been around long enough to know how Ted's politics play out in the ordinary lives of people Jones cares about. That's about as good a motive for outing someone as I've ever heard. This afternoon, Ted announced that he was temporarily stepping down from his positions of authority. A press conference of national evangelical figures that planned to express support for Ted has been called off. Jones has made available recordings he says are of Ted asking him to procure meth, and an envelope in which he says Ted mailed him money.

Jones' story is not yet confirmed, but there seems to be enough for even conservative media outlets let the Colorado Springs Gazette to run with it. It's been big news at the state's major paper, The Denver Post, as well. That's because the story is bigger than Ted; statewide, he's one of the key forces behind two new anti-gay amendements. Nationwide, as president of the National Association of Evangelicals, he sets the political tone for the Christian conservative movement at an administrative level broader than the influence of better-known figures such as Jerry Falwell.'
If the story is true, the audacity of Haggard is breathtaking. When you consider the amount of pain he has inflicted on the lives of gay people and how he has twisted his faith to vent anger at gays, it is startling (although, not surprising) that he was seeing a male escort and possibly doing drugs the entire time.


As for political impact, it's unclear how this will effect the Colorado anti-gay marriage amendment. There is a separate civil union/domestic partnership bill that was opposed by Haggard--much to the chargine of the Colorado Springs gang--and the Catholic bishops."

[source]
posted by ericb at 10:08 AM on November 3, 2006


Web Page of Prostitute Accusing Rev. Ted Haggard .
posted by ericb at 10:09 AM on November 3, 2006


dw-

Fair point on the distinction between fundamentalits and evangelicals, but to be fair, these people themselves aren't really making the distinction.

And no, I wouldn't put Graham in with Falwell or Haggard or Robertson, but on the other hand, he's one and they are three, and their clout and cultural influence is rising and his is falling.

I appreciate that there are evangelicals who are hoest and good people, but they aren't the people being discussed here. What wea re talking about are the people who signed on during it's rise to predominance and will bail on the way down for something else. I am talking about the people who co-opted evangelicism to such a degree that outsiders assume they are representative.

But I have a bigger complaint here, with the magical thinking and the appeal to authority. Graham is still the authority to some on the matters of religion. You can call him a teacher, shepherd, whatever, but you have to acknowledge that people will do as he says simply because he said it.

Secondly, none of these leaders are forcing people to really look deep inside and find the ugliness there, own it, take responsibility for it, and deal with it head on. So what we get are people who quit drinking but watch tv 30 hrs a week, or become technofetishists, or monomaniacal in some other way. Or they find people like them to idolize. Not people they want to be, but people who seem to be as they already are.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:13 AM on November 3, 2006


peeping_Thomist: It's nonsense to compare outlawing slavery to squaring the circle. Humans successfully fought and overthrew the institution of slavery (in many separate instances). It can be defeated with power that is decidedly non-omnipotent. Furthermore, defeating something isn't necessary to claim some sort of morality: the Abrahamic god outlawed murder, which still exists. By contrast, squaring the circle is a logical impossibility. If God is going to lay down laws for me to live by, the absolute least I expect of Him is to live up to my own (presumably flawed) moral standards. If your god can't say: regardless of what you do or think, slavery is always wrong, racism is always wrong, genocide is always wrong .... then frankly I'm just not going to listen to anything he says. I think that the only moral "out" is to claim that God is against those things, but somehow lacked the power to fight them. That's probably what mr_roboto assumed you meant.
posted by Humanzee at 10:18 AM on November 3, 2006


Off-topic, but part of the prurient swirl of hypocrisy --

ABC News: RNC Accepts Money From Army Porn Movie Distributor.
posted by ericb at 10:20 AM on November 3, 2006


If God changed his mind about polygamy, [snip] maybe the same is true for homophobia.

God seems to change his mind about a great number of things. Including if he actually has changed his mind.

The problem is no Deist knows, or can agree with another Deist, in what 80% of what god says, wants, does, or doesn't do. They make it up.

Engaging in this discussion of how we should interpret scripture about homosexuals is useless. It's ALL rationalization for whatever the individual believer wants. The scripture is contradictory gibberish.

They believe any horrible violent act or crime is all part of god's plan. And what they ALL want out of God's Plan is the big happy pay day of eternal life. And the worst want to see non believers waterboarded for eternity. This is not a healthy philosophy.
posted by tkchrist at 10:21 AM on November 3, 2006


One thing this thread has failed to do is show some evidence (quotes) where Haggard is a hate-filled homophobe. If anyone could present some of those, I might be a touch less inclined to find this thread so hate-filled itself.
posted by BrodieShadeTree at 10:21 AM on November 3, 2006


Adding to the "swirl" --

NY Daily News: National Republican Campaign Committee's 'Damage Control' Two Days Before the Foley Affair Became Public; Earlier Than Previously Reported.
posted by ericb at 10:23 AM on November 3, 2006


BrodieShadeTree writes "One thing this thread has failed to do is show some evidence (quotes) where Haggard is a hate-filled homophobe."

I'm sorry, but which part of "leading the cause of making gay people second-class citizens" sounds "not hateful" to you? You might as well argue that "back of the bus" laws in the 1950s never inconvenienced anyone because they didn't prevent black people from taking the bus -- just that they couldn't sit up front.
posted by clevershark at 10:30 AM on November 3, 2006


ericb writes "ABC News: RNC Accepts Money From Army Porn Movie Distributor."

Now that is just too funny.
posted by clevershark at 10:33 AM on November 3, 2006


clevershark: is that a quote from him, because what I would like to see are quotes in context. Say, from a sermon or a newsletter. He is being painted in a very bad light by many who I think, like me, have never heard/read him before. Just asking for context or proof of his hate, not a personal brow beating.
posted by BrodieShadeTree at 10:38 AM on November 3, 2006


He is being painted in a very bad light by many who I think, like me, have never heard/read him before. Just asking for context or proof of his hate, not a personal brow beating.

Do you know how to google? Just type this: "ted haggard sermon" into the search bar.
posted by c13 at 10:42 AM on November 3, 2006


Maybe I am being dense. This thread is nearing 500 comments and what I am saying is it needs some of his words here as evidence etc....you know, for posterity and to inform the tone of this thread.
posted by BrodieShadeTree at 10:44 AM on November 3, 2006


Well, your info does not say where you're from so forgive me if I'm wrong, but Haggard is a pretty well known guy here in America. Unfortunately. So for us to put links to his assholishness here is like providing the evidence that GWB invaded Iraq on false pretenses.
posted by c13 at 10:51 AM on November 3, 2006


Nobody else here is outraged by the fact that Haggard could only afford a 49 year old prostitute? The sacrifices our men in cloth make, having to pass over the more expensive and more delectable younger prostitutes. Haggard should be considered a model of virtue by helping save the job of a middle-aged American worker when so many others are going to the Dominican Republic for sweat shop labor.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 10:55 AM on November 3, 2006


Brodie, you're just being lazy. Do a search on The Google and you can read countless articles about him and his bigoted beliefs. Scroll through comments and look at the link to the video (from the documentary) of Haggard preaching about the evils of homosexuality. Click on the Harper's link and read the article about his mega-church. Use the force.
posted by mijuta at 11:00 AM on November 3, 2006


dances_with_sneetches writes "Nobody else here is outraged by the fact that Haggard could only afford a 49 year old prostitute?"

It must be hard to find an 18-year-old self-described "muscle stud" in Denver...
posted by clevershark at 11:03 AM on November 3, 2006


You're a disgrace to metafilter, and a bigot.
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:08 AM EST on November 3


I'm late but have to stand up for Konolia. She really believes this stuff and as such, she is perfectly consistent and in fact, as she says, actually trying to do good by warning homosexuals of the fate she believes is in store for them. She sincerely believes gays are as sinful as pedophiles - because God says so. You are accusing her of lobbing insults when she never set out to insult anyone. Also, it's not like she only pops into religious threads to proselytize.

I for one am grateful to periodically hear her views, as they usually don't come larded with the kind of knee jerk vitriol you display.
posted by CunningLinguist at 11:09 AM on November 3, 2006


He just came out and gave an interview saying he met the gay hooker at a motel for a massage, and he bought crystal meth but he threw it away.
BWAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Keep defending him and making excuses. This is awesome.
posted by 2sheets at 11:09 AM on November 3, 2006


"She really believes this stuff"
That is the worst excuse for anything. I don't think I need to go Godwin here to make my point.
posted by 2sheets at 11:11 AM on November 3, 2006


Keep defending him and making excuses. This is awesome.
posted by 2sheets at 2:09 PM EST on November 3

Um, who is defending him?
posted by Pastabagel at 11:16 AM on November 3, 2006


He just came out and gave an interview

2sheets, link?
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 11:19 AM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


She sincerely believes gays are as sinful as pedophiles - because God says so.

God also says you go to hell for lying.

Even a teeny white lie.

I feel that is now my duty to inform all of you that you're hell bound sinners in teh hands of an angry God!

And I tell you not to condemn you but because I care. Damn filthy second class trash!
posted by nofundy at 11:23 AM on November 3, 2006


The local affiliate has it now.
They're airing the interview on MSNBC. It's really pathetic. He thinks he can get away with just admitting what can be proven by his accuser.
posted by 2sheets at 11:24 AM on November 3, 2006


CunningLinguist writes "She really believes this stuff and as such, she is perfectly consistent and in fact, as she says, actually trying to do good by warning homosexuals of the fate she believes is in store for them. She sincerely believes gays are as sinful as pedophiles - because God says so."

Ahem.
posted by clevershark at 11:25 AM on November 3, 2006


She really believes this stuff and as such, she is perfectly consistent and in fact, as she says, actually trying to do good by warning homosexuals of the fate she believes is in store for them.

If that were all she did, that would be fine with me. But she and the rest of her ilk are perfectly ok with having the state enforce her beliefs on me, and that is not fine with me.
posted by me & my monkey at 11:27 AM on November 3, 2006


Humanzee: If your god can't say: regardless of what you do or think, slavery is always wrong, racism is always wrong, genocide is always wrong .... then frankly I'm just not going to listen to anything he says.

My God invites you to live in a way that will allow you to see for yourself what things are right and wrong, and furthermore he offers to give you every resource you require in order to become the person you already know you should be but are not. Why should the fact that he refuses to flatter you like a politician issuing position papers designed to fit the opinions of the electorate keep you from listening to what he has to say?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 11:31 AM on November 3, 2006


Pastabagel,

Hold the feeble revisionism, will you?

First you sneer: "It's addict mentality. They know they shouldn't do it, but they can't stop themselves, like the drunk who can't say no to the next drink. Weak, pathetic losers, just like their congregations... I can control my appetites, most people can. We can control our drinking, our eating, etc. "T

Then you say smoothly: "Also, I wasn't suggeting that people who are addicted are weak. The issue is how you get through it. Addiciton is a test. I hope that was clear."

Then a third bite at the subject, and we're back to the superior vibe of the first statement, with "So what we get are people who quit drinking but watch tv 30 hrs a week, or become technofetishists, or monomaniacal in some other way...."

If I hadn't been called out on calling you out - I'd shut up.

But as a cradle atheist (big deal) who is fascinated by this story, I think you're starting to exemplify why some damaged people are driven to a mega-churches and its seductive brand of garbage.

Why is the "issue" "HOW you get through" addiction?

As I said before, your sentiments sound like James Frey-style BS.
posted by Jody Tresidder at 11:31 AM on November 3, 2006


"She really believes this stuff"
That is the worst excuse for anything.


It's an excuse against the accusation that she is actively trying to insult and hurt people.
posted by CunningLinguist at 11:33 AM on November 3, 2006


Evangelist Admits Meth, Massage, No Sex

Evangelist Ted Haggard admitted Friday that he bought methamphetamine and received a massage from a gay prostitute who claims he was paid for drug-fueled trysts by the outspoken gay marriage opponent.
posted by wfrgms at 11:36 AM on November 3, 2006


Here is a screen grab of this escort's perfectly innocent looking page advertising massage services.
posted by 2sheets at 11:36 AM on November 3, 2006


Thanks for the link, 2sheets.... that is quite an interview.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 11:36 AM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


Ahem.
posted by clevershark at 11:25 AM PST on November 3


Yes?
posted by dw at 11:39 AM on November 3, 2006


So did anyone catch Kuo on CNN just now, desperately trying to change the subject?

"History will not remember what happens on Tuesday, but history will remember Jesus Christ."

"It's not about Ted, it's about Jesus!"

Sad. So very sad.
posted by darukaru at 11:39 AM on November 3, 2006


My God invites you to live in a way that will allow you to see for yourself what things are right and wrong

Okeydokey.

I think Scripture and Tradition (not to mention reason itself!) clearly teach that sexual activity outside the context of marriage between a man and a woman is wrong.

So how exactly have your God, Scripture, Tradition and reason clearly taught you to see for yourself that sexual activity between two men in a committed lifelong relationship is wrong? I'm particularly curious what process of reason leads to this conclusion.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:43 AM on November 3, 2006


Uh, that's like Clinton saying he didn't inhale...yeah right, and Haggard didn't come, suuure.

History will not remember what happens on Tuesday, but history will remember Jesus Christ.

Ah the Jesus Card ! It is used to derail the believer into thinking it is an attack on Jesus or something.
posted by elpapacito at 11:45 AM on November 3, 2006


CunningLinguist writes "I'm late but have to stand up for Konolia. She really believes this stuff and as such, she is perfectly consistent and in fact, as she says, actually trying to do good by warning homosexuals of the fate she believes is in store for them."

I really believe that Jews have horns and ritually drink the blood of Christian babies. I really believe it. I'm trying to do good by warning Jews that if they don't accept Jesus as their personal savior they'll go to Hell and be eternally tormented. I really believe this.

I'm trying to do good by warning non-Jews that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is the Jews' true plan for world domination. I really believe this. I'm trying to warn good upright Aryan women that the Eternal Jew will try to rape them to impregnate them with his evil seed. I really believe this.

I hope you'll stand up for me too. At least, you'll oppose hanging me for my views, ja?

Yours Sincerely,
Julius Streicher
posted by orthogonality at 11:48 AM on November 3, 2006


Ok, how's this?: CunningLinguist, you are an idiot. .. But see, I'm not trying to insult you--understand? I actually believe it.
posted by applemeat at 11:48 AM on November 3, 2006 [2 favorites has favorites]


I really believe that Jews have horns and ritually drink the blood of Christian babies. I really believe it.

I for one am grateful to periodically hear your views.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:55 AM on November 3, 2006


I'm late but have to stand up for Konolia. She really believes this stuff and as such, she is perfectly consistent and in fact, as she says, actually trying to do good by warning homosexuals of the fate she believes is in store for them.

Her behavior is inconsistent with that theory, as is the behavior of right-ish evangelical fundamentalists generally.

If she were acting out of some driven desire to stop people sinning, she would be in all of the fat threads railing against gluttony and in all of the should-I-leave-my-spouse askmes railing against divorce and railing against hard-heartedness and uncharitability and a host of other things that are at least as sinful as gay sex, and chiming in on a lot of other askmes urging people towards forgiveness even at their own expense.

But she only seems to actually chime in when it's about the gay sex.

Her behavior is consistent with someone who just doesn't like gays very much, or thinks gay sex is icky. Her behavior is not consistent with someone motivated by trying to keep people out of Hell by getting them to stop sinning.

Beyond which, even if her behavior were somehow consistent with a generalized concern of keeping people out of Hell, her actions and words are inconsistent with Christian belief. Trying to get people out of Hell by telling them to stop sinning is a fool's game, and guaranteed to fail if you buy into the Bible story. The whole fucking point of that little incident with God being killed on the cross was that no matter how much you tell people to stop sinning, they won't. If she were really concerned about getting people out of Hell, she would be behaving in a way that was actually successful in getting people to come to Christ. Her blustering is anything but.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:01 PM on November 3, 2006 [2 favorites has favorites]


So did anyone catch Kuo on CNN just now, desperately trying to change the subject?

"History will not remember what happens on Tuesday, but history will remember Jesus Christ."

"It's not about Ted, it's about Jesus!"

Sad. So very sad.


I think it's tough for Kuo -- thrown to the side by Dobson and Haggard, then forgotten when teh gay sex becomes more salacious than his book.

I haven't read it, but I've heard it's a very interesting read if you're an evangelical.
posted by dw at 12:03 PM on November 3, 2006


My God invites you to live in a way that will allow you to see for yourself what things are right and wrong, and furthermore he offers to give you every resource you require in order to become the person you already know you should be but are not.

Do you believe that atheists can live a moral life? How about people who are never informed that God exists?

Why should the fact that he refuses to flatter you like a politician issuing position papers designed to fit the opinions of the electorate keep you from listening to what he has to say?

You skirted the question - why does He change his mind? Why were polygamy and slavery ok a few thousand years ago, but not now? You stated that there might be "better ways," but I submit to you that slavery is always evil, and was always evil, and always will be evil. Your God sounds like quite the moral relativist to me.
posted by me & my monkey at 12:10 PM on November 3, 2006


This has been a thoroughly depressing and disheartening read. Thanks a lot.

*heads to liquor cabinet*
posted by jonmc at 12:11 PM on November 3, 2006


Oh come on Ortho and applemeat, you seems to be missing cunnilinguist point entirely

she is perfectly consistent and in fact, as she says, actually trying to do good by warning homosexuals of the fate she believes is in store for them

Now if cunni is correct, she (or anybody else, she being konolia is relevant only here) is just after offering and proposing salvation from hell a.k.a. from a live of pain and suffering.

Is she delusional ? Possibly ! Still I differentiate between trying to do something with "good" means (proposing, proselitizing, discussing) and trying to do the same thing with "bad" means ( imposing, legislating, bashing, ostracizing and the all fucking set) or doing both ways at the same time, an indication of more problems.

The problem , at least with me, starts when somebody plays The God Card, saying that what they say is endorsed by an all seeing, all knowing, omnipotent being and that they are only bringing His message. What the hell ? An omnipotent being ? Uh uh yeah sure. Exposing kids to that is awful.

Yet some say that while _really believing_ there could be a God, possibily they are delusional and may only need some help, many of them don't mean to harm, even if their way of helping doesn't really help either ; I think they are used as hostages or exploited by these who _don't believe_ there is a God, proclaim they believe, hook these people and abuse them.

To keep a long tought short, Konolia et al may actually _believe_ they are doing "good" and may merit some attention, maybe even an attempt to offer them a more reasoned viewpoint from which they could use their "will to do good" ; others are just playing bashing politics, hiding behind sanctity and playing head games, and they deserve, imho, no compassion.
posted by elpapacito at 12:19 PM on November 3, 2006


*heads to liquor cabinet*

Can I offer you a massage and a hit of meth?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:22 PM on November 3, 2006


elpapacito, in honor of that last paragraph, here's a a virtual beer: (_)>
posted by jonmc at 12:23 PM on November 3, 2006


"*heads to liquor cabinet*"

Prov. 31

6 Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts.

7 Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:26 PM on November 3, 2006


Haggard told reporters that he bought the methamphetamine for himself. He says, "I was tempted, but I never used it." Haggard told reporters he bought the meth because he was curious -- but that he then threw it away.

He also says he never had sex with Jones. He says he received a massage from him after being referred to him by a Denver hotel.

posted by EarBucket at 12:28 PM on November 3, 2006


Argh. Missed wfrgms's link above, sorry.
posted by EarBucket at 12:29 PM on November 3, 2006


I could care less whether Konolia is "trying to do good" or not. The fact is that her "trying to do good" = equating homosexuals with pedophiles and claiming homosexuals are going to hell. Therefore her "trying to do good" is really friggin' offensive and self-righteous. She deserves to be called out on it. And anyone who tries to defend her by effectively stating "But this is her religious belief! Respect what she believes, it comes from a place of kindness!" deserves to be called out for their lame, jack-ass reasoning.
posted by mijuta at 12:30 PM on November 3, 2006


Can I offer you a massage and a hit of meth?

Only if you grow some boobs and put on a Wonder Woman costume.
posted by jonmc at 12:30 PM on November 3, 2006


I have to weigh in one more time because this is just so rich. So we're supposed to believe that Haggard bought methamphetamine from a muscle bound "masseuse" AND got a "massage" from said masseuse and the two of them did NOT have crank-fueled gay whore monkey sex?
posted by Toecutter at 12:30 PM on November 3, 2006


mijuta: use your head. do you honestly think that's what we're doing?
posted by jonmc at 12:36 PM on November 3, 2006


she is perfectly consistent and in fact, as she says, actually trying to do good by warning homosexuals of the fate she believes is in store for them


um...road to hell...good intentions...something like that
posted by SBMike at 12:36 PM on November 3, 2006


This guy totally set off my methdar.
posted by Nahum Tate at 12:44 PM on November 3, 2006 [3 favorites has favorites]


No wonder he admits the meth part. He's caught on voice mails trying to buy drugs, not sex.
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:44 PM on November 3, 2006


Why yes, of course, Toecutter.

He is, after all, one of God's chosen men and would never do sinful things.

On a more serious note, we've now gotten a confession that he did know his employee and did meet with him in a hotel.

Let's see what the hotel management has to say about the "I met him through the hotel's recommendation [cough] of where to find a good meth connection that provides gay sex" angle.

If the hotel concurs with that off-the-cuff story then we know where Rush Limbaugh with his kiddie porn and Viagra are going next vacation!
posted by nofundy at 12:46 PM on November 3, 2006


Armitage_Shanks: So how exactly have your God, Scripture, Tradition and reason clearly taught you to see for yourself that sexual activity between two men in a committed lifelong relationship is wrong? I'm particularly curious what process of reason leads to this conclusion.

There's not time or space to say much in depth here, but I can at least try to clear up some confusions.

Many people are disgusted at the thought of same-sex sexual activity, and derive their negative views about such activity from this disgust. That doesn't seem to me a reliable way of reasoning about moral questions, and in any case I don't share the disgust, so it's not relevant to me.

I'm amazed by the reality of embodiment. I am troubled when I hear people talking as though we are disembodied rational wills who "own" our bodies and can use our bodies to achieve whatever ends we happen to have (so long as we respect the rights of other disembodied rational wills to use their bodies to pursue whatever ends they happen to have). This way of thinking about embodiment denies important truths that we know about ourselves from experience. I'm not sure how to articulate all those truths, but I can gesture toward them by saying that I think the body is something to be looked up to, something that has an integrity or wholeness that needs to be treated with respect.

I think adequately respecting our embodiment requires taking seriously the link between sex and babies. That link is not something arbitrary or accidental. Human persons unite sexually, and this union tends to generate new human persons. There is something sacred about sex, since there is something sacred about the human persons who are generated through sex.

These kinds of reflections lead me to reject contraception (which seek to deliver sex without babies) as well as many of the new reproductive technologies (which seek to deliver babies without sex). They also lead me to reject sexual activity by those who have not appropriately prepared themselves to receive the gift of new human life.

Furthermore, in my experience arguments in favor of severing the link between sex and babies invariably assume a dualistic anthropology and a consequentialist moral methodology. I think there are rationally compelling reasons to reject both assumptions.

So, because I think traditional sexual morality is reasonable in its own right, and because the arguments of those who reject traditional sexual morality rely on assumptions that are unreasonable, I think there's good reason to continue to affirm traditional sexual morality.

This is all too compressed, of course, but there's a freaking huge literature on this stuff if you're interested in it. You might want to look at Karol Wojtyla's _Theology of the Body_, or at a popularized summary of Wojtyla's thought.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 12:47 PM on November 3, 2006


I am troubled when I hear people talking as though we are disembodied rational wills who "own" our bodies and can use our bodies to achieve whatever ends we happen to have (so long as we respect the rights of other disembodied rational wills to use their bodies to pursue whatever ends they happen to have). This way of thinking about embodiment denies important truths that we know about ourselves from experience.

Why does this trouble you? What truths from experience lead you to believe that the body should not be subject to the will? Surely the examples of the martyred saints, many of whom died for their beliefs, is a counterexample - I'm sure their bodies were telling them to live, to do anything to stay alive, whatever the cost. Isn't the body the source of sin - our irrational desires that incline us to do what we think is wrong?

I think adequately respecting our embodiment requires taking seriously the link between sex and babies. That link is not something arbitrary or accidental. Human persons unite sexually, and this union tends to generate new human persons. There is something sacred about sex, since there is something sacred about the human persons who are generated through sex.

Surely, you can't mean that any sexual act must result in procreation? What if you're barren or impotent? Is the rhythm method immoral? If not, why aren't other methods of contraception moral as well? Doesn't sex, as an expression of love within a relationship, have a positive value regardless of whether it results in a new human life?

They also lead me to reject sexual activity by those who have not appropriately prepared themselves to receive the gift of new human life.

If the gift of new human life cannot result from a specific instance of sexual congress, why should that activity be rejected on its face?
posted by me & my monkey at 1:00 PM on November 3, 2006


so, he got massages once a month for years, or meth once a month for years? or what?

peeping, there's something sacred about all sex between 2 consenting adults--not just procreative sex.
Your Darwinism shows when you restrict it to that, you know. ; >
posted by amberglow at 1:00 PM on November 3, 2006


Oh, I guess all the martyred saints died for their beliefs, as opposed to many of them. Sorry.
posted by me & my monkey at 1:01 PM on November 3, 2006


peeping_Thomist:

That's an impressive post, even though it appears you've got the naturalistic fallacy lying in ambush there. Since you're apparently a big fan of both Humanae Vitae and Aquinas, I'm guessing you're a Catholic. So I'm (really truly honestly) curious as to why you don't refer to Karol Wojtyla as Pope John Paul II.
posted by Nahum Tate at 1:03 PM on November 3, 2006


I think adequately respecting our embodiment requires taking seriously the link between sex and babies. That link is not something arbitrary or accidental. Human persons unite sexually, and this union tends to generate new human persons. There is something sacred about sex, since there is something sacred about the human persons who are generated through sex.

These kinds of reflections lead me to reject contraception (which seek to deliver sex without babies) as well as many of the new reproductive technologies (which seek to deliver babies without sex). They also lead me to reject sexual activity by those who have not appropriately prepared themselves to receive the gift of new human life.


What's the problem with sex without babies? I know that in the Jewish tradition at least, this idea does not exist. Sex is for making babies as well as for pleasure. In fact, even if a man's wife is barren or too old to conceive, he still has an obligation to pleasure his wife. A sexless relationship is grounds for a divorce for either partner. It's also interesting to note that many rabbis oppose condoms but not the birth control pill. The reasoning is not that it creates an incentive to have sex without conceiving, but that it takes away from the pleasure of sex.

This idea is just borne of an anti-pleasure attitude that has little to do with morality (IMO). Convincing people that pleasure is bad lets you keep them conflicted, desperate, and confused, and makes them ripe to believe lots of other things. And because people tend to like pleasure, this line of thought neatly separates people into righteous self-deniers who can pat themselves on the back for constantly resisting temptation (even if they do so for no good reason), and heathen self-indulgers.

You're anti-contraception attitude is really just an anti-fun attitude.
posted by SBMike at 1:04 PM on November 3, 2006 [2 favorites has favorites]


I have to weigh in one more time because this is just so rich. So we're supposed to believe that Haggard bought methamphetamine from a muscle bound "masseuse" AND got a "massage" from said masseuse and the two of them did NOT have crank-fueled gay whore monkey sex?

Meth use and massage are incompatible activities. Meth and sex, however, go together like happy (though eventually through regular use psychotic) bunnies and sunshine. I fail to see how anyone on crank would lie still for a nice relaxing massage; it doesn't compute.
posted by jokeefe at 1:05 PM on November 3, 2006


Meth use and massage are incompatible activities. Meth and sex, however, go together like happy (though eventually through regular use psychotic) bunnies and sunshine. I fail to see how anyone on crank would lie still for a nice relaxing massage; it doesn't compute.


Bunnies!! Sunshine!!! yaay

Dude claims he threw the meth away before using it though.
posted by giantfist at 1:08 PM on November 3, 2006


me_&_my_monkey: Do you believe that atheists can live a moral life? How about people who are never informed that God exists?

Everyone knows in some way that God exists, even those who say that God does not exist. This implanted knowledge, however, can be very confused and mixed with errors, such as happens when people say that their leaders are gods, or say that human actions can be fully accounted for by referring to our physical constitution.

me_&_my_monkey: why does He change his mind? Why were polygamy and slavery ok a few thousand years ago, but not now?

They weren't "OK". Given the primitive state of cultural development at the time, they were the best that people could be brought to do.

me_&_my_monkey: Your God sounds like quite the moral relativist to me.

And anyone who isn't something of a moral relativist isn't paying attention.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 1:08 PM on November 3, 2006


I fail to see how anyone on crank would lie still for a nice relaxing massage; it doesn't compute.

It's not just a regular massage, it's a prostate massage, if you know what I mean.
posted by me & my monkey at 1:10 PM on November 3, 2006


Peeping has stated before that he uses the rhythm method, so he's not as strict an adherent to his beliefs as he'd have you believe.
posted by maxwelton at 1:11 PM on November 3, 2006


Dude claims he threw the meth away before using it though.

Is there anyone here who actually takes this man's word at face value any longer? I mean, sheesh. (Btw, anyone who believes this statement, I have some swampland in Florida an awesome holiday timeshare that I can sell you, cheap. Email's in profile.
posted by jokeefe at 1:12 PM on November 3, 2006


Nahum_Tate: you've got the naturalistic fallacy lying in ambush there

I am underwhelmed by the naturalistic fallacy. Or, to put it another way, I reflecting on the supposed naturalistic fallacy reveals that the phrase "morally ought," as used by modern moralists, has no cognitive content. For the classic statement of this claim, which I accept, see Anscombe's "Modern Moral Philosophy".
posted by peeping_Thomist at 1:16 PM on November 3, 2006


what SBMike said about pleasure and us Jews : >
(but many rabbis are sexist too, so it's about the man's pleasure more than anything else)


Dude claims he threw the meth away before using it though.
He's lying---his own words prove it.
"Hey, I was just calling to see if we could get any more."
posted by amberglow at 1:21 PM on November 3, 2006


and meanwhile, in FL: ...Questions about the sexual orientation of Republican gubernatorial candidate Charlie Crist sparked a rare show of temper by Gov. Jeb Bush today, who called a television reporter a "horse's ass" for cutting off a query from another journalist.
Rumors about Crist being gay have swirled around the campaign for months, but he has constantly denied them.
Outside the Mi Viejo San Juan restaurant, a mob of TV reporters cornered Bush and Crist, peppering them with questions about a gay rights group's call earlier in the day for Crist to come out of the closet. ...

posted by amberglow at 1:25 PM on November 3, 2006


I have never ever EVER heard of someone who doesn't use drugs buying them and then throwing them away. And a grown man? More then once? Ugh. Can we get the real truth, Ted? Please?
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 1:26 PM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


and FWIW, konolia, I have to agree that the equation of homosexuality and pedophilia is offensive and you probably knew it would hurt and anger many of us, so I think an apology is owed for that.

Well, I certainly wasn't saying that homosexuals were pedophiles. But both types of sexual behavior, along with adultery and fornication and rape are condemned by God. Sex is not just sex, and not just procreation, and not just fun on a nice Sunday afternoon. Marriage between a man and a woman is a picture of the relationship between Christ and His Church. Even the Bible admits that the comparison is a mystery but nevertheless God is pretty serious about the seriousness of sexual sin.

If I were to hate people because they were sinners I would have to hate just about everyone. We are all helpless, all unable to be holy in ourselves, all in need of a Saviour to justify us before a heavenly court (the doctrine of justification is a judicial doctrine and justification is a legal term.) When we are born again, legally our sins are forgiven and we are restored to fellowship with God. Sanctification is the step by step process whereby we grow in Christ, acting more and more like Him and less and less like sinners. That part is definitely a process.

I DO NOT WANT ANYONE READING THIS THREAD TO GO TO HELL. If that gets brickbats thrown my way, well, I'll simply have to duck or say ouch or both.
posted by konolia at 1:28 PM on November 3, 2006


They weren't "OK". Given the primitive state of cultural development at the time, they were the best that people could be brought to do.

I'm sorry, but that's a load of horseshit. How primitive was the state of cultural development one hundred and fifty years ago? Your God was content to allow slavery to exist for thousands of years, because it was "the best that people could be brought to do." Anything can be excused this way, I guess.

And anyone who isn't something of a moral relativist isn't paying attention.

That's a glib response, but not very helpful. If God can't even provide moral guidance to His believers, what good is He? God, as you describe Him, sounds ... evil.
posted by me & my monkey at 1:32 PM on November 3, 2006


You are a class act konolia.
posted by caddis at 1:36 PM on November 3, 2006


peeping_Thomist: Boaz, we have the natural law imprinted on our hearts

Oh really, you who would demand that we non-religious types must learn more about religious bunk before we call it the bunk we know it is . . . .

So, maybe you could be bothered to learn more about anatomy and physiology, and then you can show us where "natural law" is "imprinted" on the heart muscle of your average hominid. Funny, I've seen a few hearts in my time, and they had no writing on them at all.

Atheists owe nothing to believers. Believers owe the rest of us a simple demonstration of the proof of the existence of their "God." hey need to explain how followers of "natural law" are better people, or homing in on a truth the rest of us have missed. They need to explain how "natural law" (read: evolution) commands us not to do the few specific things they (or their particular cult or sect) thinks are "unnatural." They need to explain why literally dozens of animal species seem to survive and thrive despite a proclivity for the occasional same-sex coupling. For that matter, what kind of natural law explains the proclivity of many species to kill other members of their species, not only without consequence, but with positive benefit for reproductive fitness?

There is nothing "natural" about "law" as you use the term. "Law" is, in the sense you mean, a human cultural abstraction. Laws made by men can be changed by men (and women), and routinely are. A hundred years ago it was against "natural law" in the US for a white person to have sex with a black person (apparently -- call me, Harold -- this is still true in God's own country, Tennessee). A few thousand years ago, it was against "natural law" to eat shellfish in one peculiar and rather dry part of the world. Very, very few "laws" of man have any demonstrable "natural" force - that is, they would have to be true everywhere and at all times for all members of the species, regardless of what humans might think or say. The best generalization from cross-cultural evidence is that all human societies have some proscriptions against incest (and there may well be a natural basis in reproductive fitness for this) and against "murder" (but not against killing as such, viz. the daily headlines from Iraq, where we have killed tens of thousands for reasons we justify as "natural" and righteous). Right wing nonsense to the contrary, "marriage between a man and a woman" is by no means the universal basis of human society, any more than believing in a bearded white savior who hung on a cross and rose from the dead. Procreative sex between men and women, which does not rule out non-procreative sex between men and women or men and men or women and women or men and dogs -- now that's a universal basis for human society, until women can reproduce without male assistance. Everything else is just an option package.

The laws of nature are real "laws" in a totally different sense than you mean by "natural law" -- in the sense that they are incontrovertible and always true and in the sense that while they are certainly the subject of human abstraction (as in this post), are true anyway and at all times, whether abstracted and made conscious subjects of reflexive apprehension or not. Those laws, according to the best science, boil down to these: eat (and, usually, kill) to survive, to reproduce, feed your babies and keep them alive until they can reproduce, and then you die. How we get there, within any particular species or biological epoch, is a matter of some quite impressive variation, even within the historical and ethnographic record of human societies. Sometimes we kill to fulfill our "natural" legal obligations, even though man-made laws often proscribe killing. Even when they do, we justify killing on "natural" grounds - the appeal to sentiments of hate and revenge and justice that undergirds war and the death penalty, for example.

So maybe you could be bothered, Thomist (how fitting an archaism), to learn something about nature before you spout off about "natural" this and "natural" that and accuse others of being insufficiently acquainted with an ancient work of fiction from another society entirely and its relevance to a few milion idiots who fail to participate fully in our modern, science-based society, and think "God said" being gay, or anything else, for that matter, was "unnatural" or "against the law."

Atheism is the only reasonable "religion" for a modern person, given how much we now know about both religion and nature. We just do not yet live in a reasonable age . .. yet. Fine, decry and deny reason in defense of your beliefs. But then don't claim rational bases for those beliefs. There are none that apply universally, despite the rhetoric from the Christian right. None. You may get laid, eat better, and reproduce more efficiently because you joined up with the church that is such a powerful social institution in our current piddling little moment of evolutionary history. Heck, Pastor Art Ted sure did fine for himself -- money, a wife, five kids . . . the very emblem of reproductive fitness. And yet he still had to get his slice of man meat on the side. It didn't seem to affect his reproductive fitness one whit. Were it not for the views of his followers, it would be no big deal. He could go on providing for his children until they are old enough to reproduce, and die having fulfilled his (natural) "legal" obligations as a human being.

If even good Christian (gays and bisexuals, which apparently includes most Republicans) can't resist the occasional gay tryst, how unnatural is it, really? So, one more time for the woolgatherers, it's the hypocrisy, stupid. That's why this is delightful news, as it is every single time a Christian (or any other moral fundamentalist) is revealed to be a lying scumbag using "religion" to build political power and wealth. Hypocrites exposed are always entertaining, and enlightening. This isn't schadenfreude; it's justice. It's only "natural," after all, to take pleasure in seeing justice administered to a bastard. God would, if you believe his characterization in the old testament and the Koran, perhaps even approve of the public shaming Haggard will now endure. Not so long ago, his Christian followers might even have stoned him to death, but of course that wouldn't be murder. It woud be "God's justice," pursuant to "natural law."

If you really want to go all biblical, let's get into the story of the Publican and the Pharisee. The moral of that parable, as I recall, is that he who prays the loudest prays with the least sincerity and should be shunned in favor of showing grace to those who admit to being imperfect and don't parade their own moral righteousness in the public square. Ted "Art" Haggard is a classic example of the type Christ explicitly condemned -- a wealthy, righteous hypocrite meddling in politics in the name of religion and proclaiming his own virtue -- as are many of his followers. And to compound it, he denies being a sinner and accuses (or lets his followers accuse) others of immorality for daring to call him out as a hypocrite. The cock (hardeeharhar) hasn't even crowed three times and already it's "who me, a sinner?"

That's why you know anyone who rails loudly against "teh gayz" is gay, or at least confused and ashamed about his/her own sexuality, whether or not s/he acts on it or gets caught doing so. Moralism is not morality. Morality, even if you do buy that shit, has no basis in nature, only in social convention. Nature doesn't care what you do as long as you send your genes hurtling into the next generation.

When the religious nuts learn some basic science, which deals in proven and observable facts and provable or at least likely to be provable assertions (we call them hypotheses or arguments or -- gasp -- "theories") based on those facts, then I'll take it seriously when you tell me to learn more about your religion and its silly books, which refer to few if any provable or observable facts and build entire theories on the basis of disprovable assumptions disguised as assertions, like the assertion that there is a "natural law" "inscribed" on the human heart. You state that as a premise, as if it were obviously true, when it is nothing but a tired anatomical metaphor. After all, if the law is written on our hearts, what need do we have for books at all, including the bible? How do I read this "inscription" on my heart?

As for the righteous Christians, the idea that a bunch of fat, rich, SUV-driving, suburban holy rollers whose greatest moral mission is to kill teh gayz and who preach the gospel of "prosperity" are the Chosen Ones and the rest of us are damned to hell is funny as shit, on its face. I'd love to drop the lot of them into the middle of Darfur for a week and then ask them where God is this week.

[end rant/]
posted by fourcheesemac at 1:36 PM on November 3, 2006 [19 favorites has favorites]


Calling other people sinners for not following the rules of her religion is bigotry. Bigotry, not faith, is the reason I called Konolia a "disgrace."
posted by fourcheesemac at 1:37 PM on November 3, 2006


i was raised in a baptist church. people like konolia showed me what a complete and utter bunch of bullshit it all was, so thanks for that i guess.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 1:43 PM on November 3, 2006


I certainly wasn't saying that homosexuals were pedophiles. But both types of sexual behavior, along with adultery and fornication and rape are condemned by God.

OK, I'll grant that you believe this. But do you see that there is a substantive difference between homosexual behavior of consenting adults, and other sexual "sins" like adultery, pederasty and rape? That the latter can be identified as bad behavior because of the obvious harm they cause to their victims? Can you see why people might take offense to your comparison?

Do you feel that gay people should be treated as second-class citizens because they don't believe what you do? Do you think that your beliefs should have the weight of law behind them? Don't people need to be able to choose between right and wrong?
posted by me & my monkey at 1:44 PM on November 3, 2006


Konolia: "Well, I certainly wasn't saying that homosexuals were pedophiles. But both types of sexual behavior, along with adultery and fornication and rape are condemned by God."

Oh, please. You equated homosexuality with pedophilia. Fundies always pair the two, as if they had anything to do with each other. It's a cliched ploy fundies have been trotting out for years. You can try to act like an innocent little child of Christ, and others can pat you on the back and say you're a class act because of it, but every time you demean homosexuals by equating them with child molesters, expect to get called out on it by people who are sick and tired of your twisted belief system that seeks to restrict the basic civil rights of other law-abiding citizens.
posted by mijuta at 1:47 PM on November 3, 2006


We are all helpless, all unable to be holy in ourselves, all in need of a Saviour to justify us before a heavenly court...

But aren't all sins equally bad in the eyes of God? If everyone's a sinner, and this sanctification process can only start after a sinner has been born again, does it make any sense to try to reform the sinner before they've accepted Jesus? Why harp on the homosexuality thing, or any other particular sin? Focus on winning people over to this kind, loving Savior of yours -- if there's anything to this Christianity stuff, the rest will follow.
posted by gigawhat? at 1:48 PM on November 3, 2006


Peeping, are you seriously suggesting that a woman who has had uterine cancer should never have sex again? Or, that women who for other physical reasons are unable to concieve should never have sex ever? Do you really believe this?
posted by Hildegarde at 1:50 PM on November 3, 2006


severing the link between sex and babies invariably assume a dualistic anthropology and a consequentialist moral methodology.


Conseque... wha?

That seals the deal for me.

Anybody still disputing the movement to take us back to the 15th century and eradicate birth control (and non-reproductive sex for pleasure)... there is your proof.

And they use biiiig words.
posted by tkchrist at 1:54 PM on November 3, 2006


Of course, none of this changes the fact that "Ted Haggard" would be an awesome fuckin' name for a punk rock band.
posted by gigawhat? at 2:06 PM on November 3, 2006


If anyone's still reading this and wants some really sweet-ass schadenfreude, watch him "debate" Richard Dawkins on youtube.
posted by condour75 at 2:11 PM on November 3, 2006


Just once, just once, I'd like to see a discussion about Christianity that doesn't end up with people tossing Biblical quotes around.

Appealing to authority really isn't persuasive, no matter who you think that authority is or what they're saying.
posted by aramaic at 2:15 PM on November 3, 2006


As for the righteous Christians, the idea that a bunch of fat, rich, SUV-driving, suburban holy rollers whose greatest moral mission is to kill teh gayz

fourcheesemac, do you have to condemn all Christians as gay-hating? Many of the more liberal churches couldn't care less what your sexual orientation is, and as I mentioned above, the Episcopalians even have an openly gay bishop in New Hampshire.

(I like your choice of parable, though. Very fitting.)
posted by Upton O'Good at 2:16 PM on November 3, 2006


... Wait, our President holds a weekly call with a married man who allegedly uses amphetamines and has sex with a gay male hooker?
That made me think -- how would Matt Drudge be handling this situation if it were two Democrats involved?



Every time i see Haggard's face on TV i think of that parody of the Hardy Boys on South Park the other week in the 9/11 conspiracy ep. ("I'm getting a HUUUUUuge clue. Me too--I'm getting an even HUUUUUUger clue." )
posted by amberglow at 2:18 PM on November 3, 2006


konolia writes: When we are born again, legally our sins are forgiven

So this is why you need the Jews for Jesus?

Note to self: There's one user who can smear a large number of mefites as being pedophiles and who won't get a tempo-ban. Interesting.

From this day forward, I want to make it clear that I am sincere in my secular and libertarian beliefs. If I ever offend you, that's because you just don't realize how sincere I am. It's your fault, douche-nozzle, for being so "insensitive" to my beliefs. According to caddis, this makes me the epitome of "classiness."

And I've never done meth, so someone explains something to me. I've heard it makes you feel very sexy and horny and like an unstoppable sex machine. I've also heard, in this thread, that it makes your pecker shrivel up to the size of a walnut. So what gives?
posted by bardic at 2:22 PM on November 3, 2006


Well, I certainly wasn't saying that homosexuals were pedophiles. But both types of sexual behavior, along with adultery and fornication and rape are condemned by God.

Konolia.

Dear.

As a brother in Christ:

PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZE STOP MAKING AN ASS OF YOURSELF.

OK, see, in saying what you're saying, you are implying that homosexual == pedophile. And that's not so.

Yes, they are both sins. But all sins are equal in the eyes of God. And as Paul says, "all sin and fall short of the glory of God."

But you know what else is a sin? Being priggish, combative, and creating discord and strife. And, you know, that currently has you rooming with Dan Savage, Hitler, and Ann Coulter in a two bedroom Malebolge apartment. Overlooking the beautiful flaming tar pits. For all eternity.

In the name of Jesus, repent. Apologize for making the implication that those who like teh gay sex like to have it with teh young boys. Because, honestly, you're pissing me off and making people like PastaBagel think me == Fred Phelps. Or Dobson. Or something.

You might want to turn to John 17 and give that a refresher read, too. Because, you know, it's a lot easier to share the love of Jesus when you're actually loving people and your foot isn't firmly wedged in your gullet.

Please. Stop running your mouth and start loving people.
posted by dw at 2:22 PM on November 3, 2006 [4 favorites has favorites]


the Episcopalians even have an openly gay bishop in New Hampshire.

That get's death threats nearly every day from these supposed Christians.
posted by tkchrist at 2:24 PM on November 3, 2006


You know (she says, doging the erudite arguments about religion and morality going on) the meth thing makes that YouTube clip linked earlier, and the way Haggard seems a raving nutter, totally make sense. I thought he looked wired...
posted by jokeefe at 2:26 PM on November 3, 2006


Sounds like we need a CHRISTAIN CAGE MATCH!
posted by tkchrist at 2:26 PM on November 3, 2006


Just once, just once, I'd like to see a discussion about Christianity that doesn't end up with people tossing Biblical quotes around.

I'd like to see a discussion of genetics that doesn't end up with people talking about anything Mendel researched.

Or a discussion of Newtonian physics that doesn't end up mention Principa.

Sorry, but if you want a discussion of Christianity, you have to deal with the Bible.

This thread is going to keep marching towards 600, isn't it?
posted by dw at 2:30 PM on November 3, 2006


"Sounds like we need a CHRISTAIN CAGE MATCH!"

Two men enter, one man leaves, one man raptured.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:31 PM on November 3, 2006 [2 favorites has favorites]


dw: OK, see, in saying what you're saying, you are implying that homosexual == pedophile.

Bullshit. She implied nothing of the sort.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 2:33 PM on November 3, 2006


Yea, sorry dw; you're making that jump all on your own.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 2:35 PM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


Pastabagel: It's addict mentality. They know they shouldn't do it, but they can't stop themselves, like the drunk who can't say no to the next drink. Weak, pathetic losers, just like their congregations - soft, comfy, middle-class weakness. Unable to sacrifice, unable to deny themselves even when it's in their best interest, unable to resist their appetites.

That's why you evangelicals need such a literal rules-based religion, because you're too weak willed to do it youselves. But don't project that onto the rest of the country. I can control my appetites, most people can. We can control our drinking, our eating, etc.

...We don't need magic when we have self control and compassion.

That where American chruches went wrong - you took love thy neighbor to mean that you should keep blacks and gays and jews and catholics out of your neighborhoods. Love thy neighbor is the only part of the Bible that any christian should take to heart, because that is the point that jesus hammered home time after time.

Love everyone, your enemy, the weak, the diseased, the whores, everybody. Love them because you are no better. That's the NT for you. Not rules about who can touch a penis or under what conditions women are allow3ed to have sex. If you think the Bible is a guide to daily living, I'm sorry, you are in all scientific sense of the word, a moron. Your IQ is low. You missed the point.


I'm sorry I pasted almost this entire rant, but I'm just so dumbfounded by it that I don't want to edit out any good parts.

I just have never heard "compassion" and "love" preached with such utter contempt and self-righteousness before, except by those you claim to be "morons."

It astounds me that someone's views, which on the surface appear to match my own, can be so repugnant to me in the essentials.

Love everyone, your enemy, the weak, the diseased, the whores, everybody. Love them because you are no better.

Except for the born-again fundamentalists, because

If you had to accept Christ to stop your drinking, drugging, gambling, wife-beating, whatever, then you will always be morally and spiritually inferior to those of us who managed never to have those problems in the first place, or quit on our on resolve.

...because...

Addiction is a test.

Oh please. OH PLEASE. OH PLEASE. This is as much an unsubstantiated load of crap as "Sin is whatever God says it is." Apparently, addiction is whatever Pastabagel says it is. I say this respectfully, but your statements, despite being well-intentioned and purporting to promote compassion, are among the most uncompassionate and insulting I have ever read.

Footnote: I am agnostic, I've been passionately pro-gay rights ever since I saw Pedro Zamora marry his partner on the Real World: San Francisco when I was nine, and I feel a guilty mix of pity and schadenfreude for our friend Pastor Haggard.
posted by granted at 2:37 PM on November 3, 2006


And I've never done meth, so someone explains something to me. I've heard it makes you feel very sexy and horny and like an unstoppable sex machine. I've also heard, in this thread, that it makes your pecker shrivel up to the size of a walnut. So what gives?

It makes you feel sexy and horny and like an unstoppable sex machine, and also allows you to have erections that last for hours without, in the end, impairing your ability to orgasm.

...so I've heard.
posted by jokeefe at 2:38 PM on November 3, 2006


fourcheesemac: your last comment is a perfect crystallization of why I find most evolved modern leftist secular humanist or whatever the fuck you want to call yourself as tiresome and scary as most fundies. Congratulations and welcome to my pay-no-mind list.
posted by jonmc at 2:39 PM on November 3, 2006


Same back atcha, jon. Kiss my ass. I'm proud to be ignored by people who say things like "secular humanist." Yecch.
posted by fourcheesemac at 2:43 PM on November 3, 2006


Bullshit. She implied nothing of the sort.

How about this?

Replace "homosexuality" with pedophilia and see how that reads.

You don't put those two words together in this way on here, because it's going to get a visceral explosion on MeFi.

You'd be better off putting a gas can next to bonfire and not expecting anything to happen. Or thinking that a dinner party featuring Ann Coulter and Michael Moore is going to be a quiet, polite affair.
posted by dw at 2:45 PM on November 3, 2006


fourcheesemac: your last comment is a perfect crystallization of why I find most evolved modern leftist secular humanist or whatever the fuck you want to call yourself as tiresome and scary as most fundies. Congratulations and welcome to my pay-no-mind list.

Just what did he say that's so scary? Tiresome maybe, but only because the continual persistence of religious folks decrying reason makes us secular humanists repeat the same truths ad nauseum.
posted by SBMike at 2:45 PM on November 3, 2006


Appealing to authority really isn't persuasive, no matter who you think that authority is or what they're saying.

While this is the heart of atheistic belief, you'll have a hard time getting theists to agree.
posted by Llama-Lime at 2:47 PM on November 3, 2006


Because I am not a "secular humanist." I'm a scientific atheist.
posted by fourcheesemac at 2:47 PM on November 3, 2006


Which Circle of Hell is this?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:51 PM on November 3, 2006


I DO NOT WANT ANYONE READING THIS THREAD TO GO TO HELL.

I suppose if one is in the "once born again, forever born again" camp, well ... I'm perfectly fine! Nice! (Not to trivialise at all, konolia; I can appreciate and empathise with your concern. However, I don't think you're going to get anywhere with your message here.)

Now, enough with the konolia bashing. No one's going to change anyone else's opinions on the matter. Yes, I find some of her statements offensive. But it's detracting away from the Ted Haggard bashing.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 2:53 PM on November 3, 2006


Welcome to my list, fourcheesemac.

MY GROCERY LIST!
posted by gigawhat? at 2:53 PM on November 3, 2006 [3 favorites has favorites]


Which Circle of Hell is this?

It's the circle of hell where theological arguments are going on instead of evil gloating over the arrival of justice at the doorstep of a hatemonger. Call me shallow, but I'm here for the latter. At least today. Tomorrow I'll think about all this original sin and fall of man stuff.
posted by jokeefe at 2:53 PM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


Hildegaard: Peeping, are you seriously suggesting that a woman who has had uterine cancer should never have sex again? Or, that women who for other physical reasons are unable to concieve should never have sex ever? Do you really believe this?

Of course I don't believe any of those things.

People often do not conceive when they perform a procreative kind of act, either because some physical defect prevents conception, or because it isn't the fertile time of the cycle, or because the woman has gone through menopause, or whatever. Such actions do not break the link between sex and babies. This is different from not conceiving where what you are doing is not a procreative kind of act, as happens when you are with a member of the same sex, or by yourself, and so on.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 2:54 PM on November 3, 2006


I'm proud to be ignored by people who say things like "secular humanist."

How old are you, 12? I'm sure in your mind I'm some holy roller abortion clinic bomber, even though I haven't been to church in roughly 20 years, am pro-choice, pro-gay rights etc. and loathe most fundy doctrine worse than you do.

This sentence is what I found offensive and scary:

Atheism is the only reasonable "religion" for a modern person,

who died and left you boss?

As for the righteous Christians, the idea that a bunch of fat, rich, SUV-driving, suburban holy rollers


my experiences with self-proclaimed born-agains has been exactly the opposite. most of the ones I've known have been people who were in desperate straits due to addiction, abuse or other crises, and while we've gotten into it pretty heavily over various issues most of them have been nothing but kind to me, so I'm disinclined to dismiss such a huge swath of people so blithely. Your professed view is no less simplistic than theirs.
posted by jonmc at 2:56 PM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


"Secular humanists" (so 1958) can be annoying, no doubt. But they aren't trying to push an agenda that will literally make it illegal for a minority population of the US to marry, to teach in schools, to make sure their spouse is taken care of if they die in an accident, that a generation of gay teens isn't terrorized, etc.

As others have mentioned, when a majority of Evangelicals actually spend as much time worried about the poor as they do about cock-sucking (Jesus, not surprisingly, had a lot to say about the former, no so much about the latter), I'll take them seriously. Until then, they are a cult trying to empower themselves through trampling on the rights of others.

But anyways, after 500 comments, this thread has yet to be Godwined. Let me remedy that--

Ya know, Nazi's have opinions. Jews have opinons. But the Jews are so darn whiny and shrill when we march them to the showers. No class at all.
posted by bardic at 2:58 PM on November 3, 2006


and I might add, no matter how drastically my lifestyle and beliefs have differed from hers, she's never told me 'kiss her ass.' that's why I will always defend her, at least somewhat.
posted by jonmc at 2:59 PM on November 3, 2006


Oh god, not the peeping_thomist sex and contraception thread all over again. No god, no.
posted by agregoli at 3:00 PM on November 3, 2006


"Secular humanists" (so 1958) can be annoying, no doubt. But they aren't trying to push an agenda that will literally make it illegal for a minority population of the US to marry, to teach in schools, to make sure their spouse is taken care of if they die in an accident, that a generation of gay teens isn't terrorized, etc.

bardic, I know. I was just looking for a quick catch-all to describe my frustration, which is why I added the 'whatever the fuck you call' at the end.
posted by jonmc at 3:01 PM on November 3, 2006


This is different from not conceiving where what you are doing is not a procreative kind of act

So you consider all sexual acts other than those that end with a husband ejaculating into a wife's vagina to be immoral, is that correct?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 3:02 PM on November 3, 2006


fourcheesemac: So, maybe you could be bothered to learn more about anatomy and physiology, and then you can show us where "natural law" is "imprinted" on the heart muscle of your average hominid. Funny, I've seen a few hearts in my time, and they had no writing on them at all.

Since this is addressed to me I suppose I should have a response. Here goes: I hope writing that was cathartic for you, because I can't imagine what other goals you might have had in mind in writing it.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 3:10 PM on November 3, 2006


bardic writes "But anyways, after 500 comments, this thread has yet to be Godwined. "

Well, I did implicitly compare defending Konolia to defending Julius Streicher.
posted by orthogonality at 3:10 PM on November 3, 2006


peeping_Thomist is also known as tedious_Catholic.
posted by bardic at 3:11 PM on November 3, 2006


also, if you're an athiest, what do you care if somebody says you're going to hell? you don't believe in it anyway.

Look, konolia has read me describing my own drug use, drunkeness, fornication, bisexuality and a host of other things that probably have me booked on the express train to hell, but she's still never been anything but friendly to me. y'know why? because I've been decent to her.

I was just describing this thread to my wife (an avowed athiest) and she described what I'm trying to do as a kind of cognitive therapy for konolia, and attacking somebody (and believe me, I understand where the urge to rip into her comes from and I've taken other righty MeFites to task for it in emails before) but I don't think it does her or us any good.
posted by jonmc at 3:12 PM on November 3, 2006


Just as in life, I come in second yet again.

/weeps just like baby Jesus
posted by bardic at 3:14 PM on November 3, 2006


FUNDAMENTALIST ATHEISM
posted by quonsar at 3:14 PM on November 3, 2006


I with jokeefe on this one. Less theology, more Rev. Ted! I'll get the ball rolling:

Rumor has it that the gay community in Colorado Springs has known about Rev. Ted for years and that he not only has had sex with gay prostitutes, but has also had a ten-year long affair with one of his male aides, and has come on inappropriately to many young staffers.
posted by maryh at 3:15 PM on November 3, 2006


your link is broken, maryh
posted by SBMike at 3:18 PM on November 3, 2006


People often do not conceive when they perform a procreative kind of act, either because some physical defect prevents conception, or because it isn't the fertile time of the cycle, or because the woman has gone through menopause, or whatever. Such actions do not break the link between sex and babies.

If you specifically choose to have sex when it isn't the fertile time of the cycle, because you don't want babies, haven't you intentionally broken the link between sex and babies? How about if you pull out before ejaculation?

It seems to me that you're putting more weight on this link between sex and babies than it can safely handle. If God didn't want us to enjoy sex, why didn't He simply make it so that we don't, or that we only have sex during estrus like the vast majority of the animal kingdom? A reasonable person who believed in God might well assume that God made sex pleasurable not just to encourage procreation, but to strengthen the bond between two people. This reasonable person might also assume that, if gay people are attracted to members of the same sex, God made them that way. What kind of cruel fiend would do that to someone, but prohibit him from acting upon it when it harms no one? That kind of God would make me welcome the abyss.

This is different from not conceiving where what you are doing is not a procreative kind of act, as happens when you are with a member of the same sex, or by yourself, and so on.

Do you actually believe that masturbation is a sin? If so, is it a serious enough sin that we should worry about it? Most of the people I know do much worse things. If it's not important, why is gay sex so important? What makes that so much more serious?
posted by me & my monkey at 3:20 PM on November 3, 2006


Armitage, I think Peeping_Thom's views on "sacred sex" are best illustrated via The Wicker Man or something.

As best as I can make out, his theory goes like this:

cock + vagina = sacred
cock + cock = unsacred
vagina + vagina = unsacred
cock + own hand = unsacred
vagina + own hand/dolphin vibrator = unsacred
posted by mijuta at 3:21 PM on November 3, 2006


agregoli, it's not my fault that people ask me questions that require talking about contraception!

Armitage_Shanks: So you consider all sexual acts other than those that end with a husband ejaculating into a wife's vagina to be immoral, is that correct?

Almost. In ethics a lot depends on what people are trying to do, in addition to what they actually do. If a husband and wife start having sex (which can include pretty much anything two people might ever want to do--there's nothing to be ashamed of between a husband and wife) and the husband comes before they get around to penetration, or while they are doing something other than penetration, or whatever, they haven't necessarily done anything wrong. But if they deliberately avoid completing the act in the normal way, yeah, that's wrong.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 3:21 PM on November 3, 2006


me_&_my_monkey: Do you actually believe that masturbation is a sin? If so, is it a serious enough sin that we should worry about it? Most of the people I know do much worse things. If it's not important, why is gay sex so important? What makes that so much more serious?

Yes.

Yes.

Gay sex isn't so important.

It's not more serious.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 3:23 PM on November 3, 2006


why didn't He simply make it so that we don't...

No shit. What if we were like cats?

"The male cat's penis has spines which point backwards. Upon withdrawal of the penis, the spines rake the walls of the female's vagina. The female needs this stimulation for ovulation to begin."

So, it's not like there's not a natural system in place for making sex hurt like a motherfucker.

Oh, but I'm sure it has something to do with free will, resisting temptation, or some other bullshit about we hoo-mons are better than the animals... the tasty, tasty animals.
posted by smallerdemon at 3:27 PM on November 3, 2006


I care for two reasons. On a political level, these people want to enact legislation that tells me how and with whom I can live my life. On a visceral level, it's fucking rude. When a 5 year-old runs around peeing on people, it's funny because he doesn't know better. When an adult does it by screaming about damnation of all who don't believe in their skygod of choice, it's pathetic and annoying. If I happen to tell that person that they're a butt-head, I somehow become the "shrill, militant atheist" or whatever, but the babbling theist is held up for being so preciously "authentic" and "sincere" for holding up such strong, misguided beliefs.

Add to this the obvious hypocrisy of so many Christians. And throw in a pinch of ignorance -- I've read the Bible, and I'm prepared to discuss it on a rational basis. Many Christians I've met, and especially the shrieking-harpy ones, don't actually know much about their principle texts. That's just stupid.

I guess that's four reasons. Oh well.
posted by bardic at 3:28 PM on November 3, 2006


Masturbation is a sin. Perfect indictment of the whole lot of you Jesus freaks. Show me one human who has never committed this "sin." Show me one mammal, in fact. What was that about "natural law?" Who's really "unnatural" here?
posted by fourcheesemac at 3:29 PM on November 3, 2006


Oh, now I get it! Peeping_Thom is married to Kornholia!
posted by mijuta at 3:31 PM on November 3, 2006


*whines* Look, I came here for scandal, dammit. So gimme.

I was just describing this thread to my wife

Aw, I just got a warm glow reading that, Jon. (Did it take a while to get used to saying "my wife"?)
posted by jokeefe at 3:33 PM on November 3, 2006


Oh, nice bigots are always the best ones.
posted by fourcheesemac at 3:33 PM on November 3, 2006


But if they deliberately avoid completing the act in the normal way, yeah, that's wrong.

Oh. My.

Completing the "act?" "Normal" way? Wrong?

You're starting sound more and more like Norman Bates with every post. Stop posting now. Go get therapy.

Seriously.
posted by tkchrist at 3:33 PM on November 3, 2006


^^^

And don't tell me that this is Argument, and Scandal is down the hall and to the left, or something.
posted by jokeefe at 3:33 PM on November 3, 2006


But if they deliberately avoid completing the act in the normal way, yeah, that's wrong.

Wow, you know, I would have thought god would have better things to think about. I mean, shit, you know, the god damned UNIVERSE and all. Nope, seems he's concerned with something probably sub-microscropic in size by comparsion to him and how they poke their appendages into each other. What a thoughtful god. Good thing our planet has so few problems that the lord can get down to these brass tacks!
posted by smallerdemon at 3:34 PM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


But if they deliberately avoid completing the act in the normal way, yeah, that's wrong.

So, again - rhythm method, right or wrong?

And how does masturbation rate against, say, cutting someone off in traffic? Or putting the milk jug back in the fridge even though it's practically empty? Or judging others?

Since masturbation is not criminalized, should homosexual behavior be decriminalized? If it should be decriminalized, why shouldn't the state recognize homosexual unions?

If a husband and wife start having sex (which can include pretty much anything two people might ever want to do--there's nothing to be ashamed of between a husband and wife) and the husband comes before they get around to penetration, or while they are doing something other than penetration, or whatever, they haven't necessarily done anything wrong. But if they deliberately avoid completing the act in the normal way, yeah, that's wrong.

Yikes, that's complicated. Having to think that through would probably make me lose my erection. Apparently, God wants us all to be lawyers. Good thing I'm a gay heathen.

So, let's say I'm being fellated by my wife, and it feels so good that I let myself come. I've deliberately avoided intercourse, although I originally planned for some missionary action. Right or wrong?
posted by me & my monkey at 3:35 PM on November 3, 2006


I can't give my nice Christian wife a facial?

DAMN YOU THEOLOGY, DAMN YOU!
posted by bardic at 3:35 PM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]


Sorry, but if you want a discussion of Christianity, you have to deal with the Bible.

Why does Christianity rear its ugly head whenever there is a discussion of justice and what is right and what is wrong?
posted by stirfry at 3:36 PM on November 3, 2006


(Because my sperms are totally Christian. They told me so.)
posted by bardic at 3:36 PM on November 3, 2006


can't give my nice Christian wife a facial?

Sure you can. How flexible is she?
posted by tkchrist at 3:37 PM on November 3, 2006


On a political level, these people want to enact legislation that tells me how and with whom I can live my life. On a visceral level, it's fucking rude.

Understood. But when confronted with konolia, I can do one of two things: treat as a representation of an amorphous group or I can treat as the individual she is, and use the fact that we generally like eachother as a wedge to maybe get her to think a bit. Futile, maybe, but I'd rather do that than give up.

Masturbation is a sin. Perfect indictment of the whole lot of you Jesus freaks. Show me one human who has never committed this "sin."

show any human being anywhere who hasn't done something that by any moral standard, secular or religious, that wouldn't be considered wrong or sinful or evil or whatever word you want to use. I'm not religious, but I definitely understand what drives people to be 'born again.'
posted by jonmc at 3:37 PM on November 3, 2006


bardic writes "I can't give my nice Christian wife a facial?"

Emphatially No.

ericb writes "Women must not wear gold or pearls (1 Timothy 2:9)."
posted by orthogonality at 3:38 PM on November 3, 2006 [3 favorites has favorites]


Show me one human who has never committed this "sin." Show me one mammal, in fact.

dolphins? ... porcupines? ... giraffes? ... cattle? ... horses?

there are certain mechanics involved that aren't exactly convenient for all mammals here ...
posted by pyramid termite at 3:39 PM on November 3, 2006


Since masturbation is not criminalized...

Oh... don't be so sure of that.
posted by smallerdemon at 3:40 PM on November 3, 2006


Fixed link. (Iknow, disappointing lack of Borat connection.)
posted by maryh at 3:41 PM on November 3, 2006


I'm not religious, but I definitely understand what drives people to be 'born again.'

Yep. Fear, stupidity, shame, guilt, and greed.

You know. The "higher" emotions.
posted by tkchrist at 3:41 PM on November 3, 2006


I DO NOT WANT ANYONE READING THIS THREAD TO GO TO HELL.

Thanks anyway, but if it's good enough for Gandhi, it's good enough for me.
posted by homunculus at 3:42 PM on November 3, 2006


Let's make 666 comments for this thread. Then go spill some seed.
posted by SBMike at 3:42 PM on November 3, 2006


Rumor has it that the gay community in Colorado Springs has known about Rev. Ted for years and that he not only has had sex with gay prostitutes, but has also had a ten-year long affair with one of his male aides, and has come on inappropriately to many young staffers.

maryh: I have fixed your linkage.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 3:43 PM on November 3, 2006


Oh, but I'm sure it has something to do with free will, resisting temptation, or some other bullshit about we hoo-mons are better than the animals...

I would be ok with that, actually. But the thing is, people like konolia are trying to prevent me from exercising my free will, through the enforcement power of the state. She has never answered that, although I've asked it repeatedly, here and in other threads. But she seems perfectly ok conflating God's law with man's law.
posted by me & my monkey at 3:43 PM on November 3, 2006


Oh ... well ... you beat me to it. Good work!
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 3:43 PM on November 3, 2006


dolphins?

Masturbation, maybe not (I don't hang with dolphins, so I'm not), but you did see that Ricky Gervais video, right?

"He [points with pointer] is fucking him [points with pointer] in the head."
posted by smallerdemon at 3:44 PM on November 3, 2006


I recommended that konolia read Stealing Jesus. I recommend that everyone else read Donna Minkowitz's Ferocious Romance, her treatise on her undercover adventures in the religious right. She quotes Al Capp aproppiately, "We has met the enemy, and they is us!"

(if it makes you all feel any better, as I type this I'm guzzling BUd and listenming to Jethro Tull's "Teacher")
posted by jonmc at 3:45 PM on November 3, 2006


Yep. Fear, stupidity, shame, guilt, and greed.

Is guilt always such a bad thing, tkchrist? sometimes guilt is deserved.
posted by jonmc at 3:46 PM on November 3, 2006


dolphins? ... porcupines?

Where there's a will, there's a way.

I stopped Googling after porcupine, for reasons I won't bother going into. Consider yourself warned.
posted by me & my monkey at 3:50 PM on November 3, 2006


"Emphatially No."

lol

Can I give her a phatial, then?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:57 PM on November 3, 2006


me_&_my_monkey: So, again - rhythm method, right or wrong?

Fine in itself, though in the particular case it depends on whether you have legitimate reasons for avoiding pregnancy.

me_&_my_monkey: And how does masturbation rate against, say, cutting someone off in traffic?

More serious, though cutting someone off in traffic is more serious than most people probably think. (It's dangerous, for one thing.)

Or putting the milk jug back in the fridge even though it's practically empty?

More serious.

Or judging others?

Depends on how serious the judging is, but they're both serious.

me_&_my_monkey: Since masturbation is not criminalized, should homosexual behavior be decriminalized?

Modern nation-states aren't in a position to offer their citizens moral education, so I'd go for decriminalization.

If it should be decriminalized, why shouldn't the state recognize homosexual unions?

The state is interested in marriage because of children. I can't get over the sex/children link.

me_&_my_monkey: Yikes, that's complicated.

No it's not. Maybe it sounds complicated, but it's not.

me_&_my_monkey: So, let's say I'm being fellated by my wife, and it feels so good that I let myself come. I've deliberately avoided intercourse, although I originally planned for some missionary action. Right or wrong?

Wrong if it was deliberate, but was it? When two young people are first married, I could see this sort of thing happening by accident a few times before the couple figures out how their bodies work together, and it wouldn't be deliberate, or not very deliberate. But if you're talking about a mature married couple who know exactly what they're doing, it would be more deliberate and would be more wrong. A lot depends on what they were trying to do.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 3:58 PM on November 3, 2006


people like konolia are trying to prevent me from exercising my free will, through the enforcement power of the state

POOR BABY! IS WIDDLE POOKIE MOO-MOO FEELING OPPRESSED? PEOPLE HAVE TO APPROVE WHAT YOU DO OR THEY ARE OPPRESSING WIDDLE OLD YOU? AAAAWWWWWW! CAN'T ACHEIVE A BAC OF 4.0 AND OPERATE A ROAD GRADER ON THE FREEWAY? THE STATE IS OPPRESSING YOU! CAN'T DOUBLE PARK IN THE HOSPITAL ZONE? MEDICAL FASCISTS ARE RUINING YOUR LIFE! ARE PEOPLE TSK-TSKING YOUR AVID WEENIE-GOBBLING? HOW DARE THEY?!?!?!?!
posted by quonsar at 4:04 PM on November 3, 2006



me_&_my_monkey: So, again - rhythm method, right or wrong?

Fine in itself, though in the particular case it depends on whether you have legitimate reasons for avoiding pregnancy.


Please, list some of these legitimate reasons for avoiding pregnancy that are consistent with your version of morality. What are they?
posted by SBMike at 4:05 PM on November 3, 2006


I think Thomist's opinion can be summed up in song...

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.


(Look, a Monty Python quote HAD to happen here, I'm just the first to admit it. And to do it. And I'm proud of it. AND I'D DO IT AGAIN! MUAHA! HAHAHAHA!)
posted by smallerdemon at 4:06 PM on November 3, 2006


"I can't get over the sex/children link."

Yeah, Foley either.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:07 PM on November 3, 2006


Metafilter: Tsk-tsking your avid weenie-gobbling since sometime in 1999.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:08 PM on November 3, 2006


Because marriage improves peoples' sex lives.

Now